alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Table of Contents

Exhibit32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report ofCkruch, Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-KSBfor the period ending December  31,  2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the‘‘Report’’), I, Jan E. Chanson, Executive VicePresident & Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)    TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)    Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompany.

|                       |  |        |  |                                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|-----------------------|--|--------|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|
| Dated: April 12, 2006 |  | By:    |  | /s/ Jan E. Chason                                                  |
|                  |  |   |  | Jan E. ChasonExecutive Vice President &Chief Financial Officer |
|                       |

This certificationaccompanies this Report on Form 10-QSB pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent requiredby such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form with the electronic version ofthis written statement required by Section 906, has been provided tothe Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

----
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 13

- 00117

- CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

JORGE LOUIS VERDE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 336th District Court

Fannin County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR

- 12

- 24361

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

The State has appealed the trial court’ s grant of Jorge Louis Verde’s motion to suppress

evidence. Based on the reasoning and analysis in our opinion in cause number 06

- 1 3

- 001 1 5

- CR,

issued on even date herewith, we affirm the trial court’s ruling

.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: March 5, 2014

Date Decided: April 23 , 2014

Do Not Publish
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT NO.11

                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE




                                                       Quarter Ended
                                                       March 31, 1999
                                                  -------------------------
                                                                  Earnings
                                                  Shares          Per Share
                                                  ------          ---------  
                                                       (in Thousands)
                                                  3,341           $0.24
Basic Weighted Average Shares Outstanding         =====           =====

Diluted 
  Average Shares Outstanding                      3,341
  Common Stock Equivalents                           32 
                                                  -----                    

                                                  3,373           $0.24
                                                  =====           =====      

                                                        Quarter Ended
                                                        March 31, 1998
                                                  -------------------------
                                                                  Earnings
                                                  Shares          Per Share
                                                  ------          ---------
                                                       (in Thousands)

Basic Weighted Average Shares Outstanding         3,104           $0.22
                                                  =====           =====
Diluted
  Average Shares Outstanding                      3,104
  Common Stock Equivalents                          233
                                                  -----

                                                  3,337           $0.21
                                                  =====           =====
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         141,654
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,820
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               170,474
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              67,837,857
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          671,112
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        47,304
<OTHER-SE>                                 (9,714,081)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                67,837,857
<SALES>                                        240,248
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               240,248
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  265,731
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (9,778,975)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,778,975)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,778,975)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### .,

Name Clean Power Plants/Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources and Standards for.Modified and Reconstructed Stationary Sourc. es: EGUs Atlanta, GA July 29, 2014 

### Elected Officials Sign-in Sheet Affiliation Contact Information
Exhibit 13.1

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

I, H. MacKenzie Millar, President and Chief Executive Officer of Millar Western
Forest Products Ltd. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge:

          (i)  the Company's annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year
               ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the
               requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
               Act of 1934; and

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


Dated:  June 24, 2005

                                   /s/ H. MacKenzie Millar
                                   -------------------------------------
                                   H. MacKenzie Millar
                                   President and Chief Executive Officer
---

---

EXHIBIT 15.3

# Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

Retalix Holdings, Inc.Plano, Texas

We consent to the incorporation by
reference into the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-09840,
333-12146, 333-14238, 333-109874 and 333-118930) of Retalix Ltd. of our report dated July
21, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Retalix Holdings Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 2004, included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of
Retalix Ltd for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006.

/s/ Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C.
San Diego, California
June 21, 2007



---

---
#### Title Guarantee & Trust Company, Plaintiff, *v.*Bella Corn and Others, Defendants. 

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

May 9, 1936.

*Benjamin J, Rabin,*for the motion.

*Irving S. Finkston,*opposed.

McLaughlin (Alonzo G.), J.

Section 1083-a of the Civil Practice Act  provides that a mortgagee may move for a deficiency judgment *“*simultaneously with the making of a motion for an order confirming the sale or within ninety days after the date of the consummation of the sale.”

The above provision contemplates in a case where the mortgagee has made a motion to confirm the referee’s report of sale, although no application for a deficiency is sought, that in such event no deficiency judgment is available to the mortgagee unless he applies for the same within ninety days subsequent to the consummation of the sale. On the other hand, where the sale has been consummated but no motion thereafter made to confirm the referee’s report, the mortgagee is not limited with respect to the time in which to apply for a deficiency except that such application must be made “ simultaneously ” with the motion to confirm.

It will be observed that the above provision contains no limitation of time within which a mortgagee may move to confirm the report of sale. Further, section 1082 of the Civil Practice Act expressly provides that “■ an application for confirmation of the report of sale

*240[except in a case where surplus moneys have resulted from the sale] may be made at any time after the report shall have been filed eight days.”

Irrespective, therefore, of the lapse of time, even though it extend beyond a ninety-day period or even a greater period, the mortgagee may move for the confirmation and thereupon “ simultaneously ” apply for a deficiency. The use in the statute of the disjunctive expression “ or ” clearly indicates the correctness of the above conclusion. It indicates two distinct statutory alternatives; one relating to a case where there has been no confirmation of the referee’s report, and the other to a case where apparently the referee’s report of sale has been confirmed after a consummation of the sale. In the first alternative, the time to move for a deficiency is limited only by the requirement that such motion be made “ simultaneously ” with the application to confirm the referee’s report of sale; in the second alternative, the time in which to move for a deficiency is specifically limited to the ninety-day period prescribed in the statute.

It is my view, as expressed in the original memorandum, that the plaintiff in any event properly moved within the ninety-day period. Assuming, however, that the motion was not made within the ninety-day period, nevertheless, in accordance with the views herein expressed, it was timely brought since the application was *“*simultaneous ” with the motion to confirm the report of sale. .

Motion for reargument granted. On reargument, original decision adhered to.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J A I M E CI SN ERO S, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 12- 50060 D. C . No . 2 : 9 5 - c r - 0 0 5 9 5 - S VW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S t e phe n V . W i l s on, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2012 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J a i m e C i s ne r os appe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e ntand c ha l l e nge s the r e voc a t i on of

hi s s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e and the 24- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d upon r e voc a t i on. P ur s uantt o A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ), C isn er o s’s 

# FI LED JAN 02 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 50060 2 c ouns e l ha s f

i l e d abr i e f

s t a t i ng tha tthe r e ar e no gr ounds f orr e l i e f , a l ong w i th a m ot i on t o w i thdr aw a s c ouns e l of r e c or d. W e ha ve pr ovi de d C i s ne r os the opportuni tyt o f

i l e apr o s e s uppl e m e nt a lbr i e f . N o pr o s e s uppl e m e nt a l br i e f or an s w e r in g b r ie f

h a s b e e n f

ile d . O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o ar g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. C i sn ero s’ s m o t i o n t o ex p ed i t e i s D EN I ED A S M O O T. C o u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s GR AN T E D. AF F I RME D.
April 3, 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

FIVE STAR RECONSTRUC TORS, G.V. INC. , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00046

- CV V.

GRAYCO BUILDERS, LLC , A ppellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the order signed by the court below on January 5 , 2011. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

.
We furt her order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, Five Star Reconstructors, G.V. Inc.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### D. C. Lamb, Appellee, v. J. H. Ross et Uxor, Appellants.

Appeal: jurisdiction. The certificate of the district court upon appeals to the supreme court, in cases involving less than one hundred dollars, must show upon its face that the questions certified for determination upon the appeal are involved in the case. In the . absence of such showing the court will not examine the record to learn such fact, hut will dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

*Appeal from Tama District Court.*— Hon. J. H. Preston, Judge.

Friday, February 5, 1892.

Action involving the priority of certain chattel mortgages.' From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendants *appeal.*

Dismissed.

*Struble*& *Stiger,*for appellants.

*W. H. Stevers*and *J. W. Lamb,*for appellee.

Granger, J;

The case involves less than one hundred dollars, and the jurisdiction of this court depends upon the certificate of the trial judge. The appellee urges that the certificate in this case does not show that the questions certified are involved in the case, and that the court is without jurisdiction. The certificate, barring the questions, is as follows: “Now, to-wit, on this eighth day of March, 1890, the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial being sustained, on request of *579the defendants’ counsel, this certificate of appeal is given, as the case involves questions upon which it is desirable to have the opinion of the supreme court. Therefore, at the request of the defendants’ counsel, the following questions are certified to the supreme court for consideration.” This is followed by some two pages of questions, which it may be admitted an examination would show are involved in the record. But that is not sufficient. The certificate must on its face show the jurisdictional facts. *Curran v. Coal Co.,*63 Iowa, 94. It may be conceded that the certificate states that the cause involves questions on which it is desirable to have the opinion of this court. It does not, however, state that the questions certified are involved in the case. One could know that the questions appearing were involved in the case only by going to the record. In *Curran v. Coal Co., su/pra,*it is said: “¥e have no power to go behind the certificate of the trial judge and determine whether the case involves the questions of law included in the certificate.” The case of *Beach v. Donovan,*74 Iowa, 543, is much like this in its facts. In that case the court, by going to the record, could have known that the questions certified were involved in the case. The same is true of this case. The certificate does not state, as it should, that the questions upon which it is desirable to have the opinion of this court are involved in the case. The point may be regarded as technical, but it is technically correct and we are forced to decide it. In view of the evident policy of the law to suppress trifling litigation and preserve the time of the court for more pressing and important work, these holdings should meet with favor. The appeal is dismissed.

KiNNE, J., took no part in this case.
|   | EXHIBIT      32.a |
|--------|-------------------|

|   | CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO |
|--------|--------------------------------|

|   | 18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350, |
|--------|------------------------------|

|   | AS      ADDED BY |
|--------|------------------|

|   | SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002 |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------|

| (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 theReport. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
EXHIBIT 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.
1350)
  
 Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), the
undersigned, David C. Kahn, Chief Financial Officer of Network-1 Security
Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify to
his knowledge, that:
 
 The
Annual Report of Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 of the Company
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities 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.


/s/ David
      C. KahnDavid
      C. KahnChief Financial
      OfficerMarch
      31, 2009
#### NATHAN McMINN v. S. W. HAMILTON, Administrator.

*Jurisdiction*— Venue—Pleading.

If a Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of an action and the *venue*is wrong, the objection must he taken in apt time. If the defendant pleads to the merits of the action, he will be deemed to have waited the objection.

Appeal from an Order dismissing the Action, made at Spring Term, 1877, of Transylvania Superior Court, by *Henry, J.*

Erom the 'case agreed and the record, the following facts appear: The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant in his representative character for $70.35 before a Justice of the Peace in said County where both parties reside. The defendant obtained letters of administration and filed his *301official bond in Henderson County. The defendant appeared before the Justice and pleaded payment and statute of limitations. Evidence was heard and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, from, which the' defendant appealed. In the Superior Court he filed a demurrer, not to the jurisdiction, but on other grounds ; and made a motion at the same term to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction. The plaintiff declined to remove the case by consent and His Honor dismissed the action. Erom which order the plaintiff appealed.

*Mr. J. S. Merrimon,*for plaintiff.

*Mr. A. W. Say wood,*for defendant.

Eairoloth, J.

(After stating the facts as above.) Where a Court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter, the objection can be taken at any time, and indeed as soon as thi$ fact is discovered, the Court *mero motu*will take notice of it and dismiss the action. But if it has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the *venue*is wrong, the objection must be taken in apt time ; and if the defendant pleads to the merits of the action, he will be taken to have waived the objection. He cannot have two chances.

Applying this principle to the case before us, we think the defendant waived the objection by pleading before the Justice and that it was then too late to raise it.

Error.

PER, CURIAM. Judgment reversed.
p110534.sr

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0534 Standard Review Draft 4/4/2013

ENGINEER: El-Zoobi \ JD \ JAS \ AG \ JAS

Page 1p110534.sr

Page 2p110534.sr

Page 3p110534.sr

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0534

Page 4p110534.sr

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0534

Page 5p110534.sr

Page 6p110534.sr

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0534

Page 7p110534.sr

Page 8p110534.sr

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0534

Page 9p110534.sr

Page 10p110534.sr

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0534

Page 11p110534.sr

Page 12p110534.sr

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0534

Page 13p110534.sr

Page 14p110534.sr

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0534

Page 15p110534.sr

Page 16p110534.sr

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0534

Page 17p110534.sr

Page 18p110534.sr

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0534

Page 19p110534.sr

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0534

Page 20p110534.sr

Page 21p110534.sr

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0534

Page 22p110534.sr

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0534

Page 23p110534.sr

Page 24p110534.sr

Page 25
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 86784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25371]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-37-2024]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 80; Authorization of Production 
Activity; Senior Operation LLC; (Expansion Joints and Clamshell 
Bellows); New Braunfels, Texas

    On June 28, 2024, Senior Operation LLC submitted a notification of 
proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within 
FTZ 80, in New Braunfels, Texas.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (89 FR 55221, July 3, 2024). On 
October 28, 2024, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's 
decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this 
time. The production activity described in the notification was 
authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, 
including section 400.14.

    Dated: October 28, 2024.
Camille R. Evans,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-25371 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P