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



Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Ladies and Gentleman:



In connection with the quarterly report of Featherlite, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Jeffery A. Mason, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|                |  |                        
|--------------- |  | -----------------------
|August 13, 2004 |  | /s/ Jeffery A. Mason   
|                |  | Chief Financial Officer
Argued October 4,

affirmed November 13, 1973

#### In the Matter of the Dissolution of the Marriage of LAIRSON, *Respondent, and*LAIRSON, *Appellant.*

515 P2d 728

*Henry L. Bauer,*Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Bauer, Murphy, Bayless & Fundingsland, Portland.

*Fred A. Anderson,*Tigard, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Anderson & Dittman, Tigard.

*341Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Lahgtry and Fort, Judges.

PEE CURIAM.

The parties each sought and the court granted a decree of dissolution of their marriage. The husband appeals.

He here challenges only1 the amount and duration of the award of alimony. The court awarded the wife $500 a month “for an indefinite period of time until further order of the court.”2 The wife, by the decree, assumed a monthly mortgage- payment of $212 on the family home which was awarded to her. She also, by the decree, was required to make monthly payments of $269.33 to discharge an existing indebtedness on personal property awarded to her. Neither of the contracts is in evidence, thus, the duration of the payments is not clearly established.

Respondent points out that petitioner-wife has, in earlier years, taught school and contends that this potential skill is a factor to be considered in connection *342with the duration of the alimony *payments. Wright and Wright,*13 Or App 101, 508 P2d 829*(1973). See also: Johnson and Johnson,*14 Or App 203, 513 P2d 178 (1973); *Scheer and Scheer,*13 Or App 551, 513 P2d 174 (1973); *Dunn and Dunn,*13 Or App 497, 511 P2d 427 (1973).

 Certainly sncli a circumstance is one-relevant-consideration, bnt it is by no means the only one. Here the. award of $50Q.per month in the light of the current monthly payment obligations respondent is required-to assume under - the decree, even when- considered with the unchallenged monthly child support ordered: in the aggregate amount- of. $800 per month--for the four ehildren'appears entirely reasonable for- a man to pay whose current annual income before taxes is-in excess of-.$40,000. There was no abuse of the trial court’s discretion. *Smith v. Smith,*212 Or 654, 320. P2d 1111 (1958); *Shields v. Bosch,*190 Or 155, 224 P2d 560 (1950).

Affirmed

1

 We quote from appellant’s brief:

> “The issues on appeal are whether the sum of $500 per month is a reasonable sum which the court should have allowed for the support and maintenance of the petitioner, and whether such support and maintenance should be paid for an indefinite period of time.”

2

 We note that the memorandum opinion of the court expressly provides for termination of alimony upon remarriage of the wife. The decree does not.

We presume that the trial court in awarding alimony for an indefinite period of time, until further order of the court, necessarily had reference to the right of a party to seek modification of a support order under ORS 107.135 (1) (a), and, pursuant thereto, for the court to enter such order as from the evidence it finds appropriate.
**Exhibit 21.1**SUBSIDIARIES   Name Jurisdiction of Organization      AirComp L.L.C. DelawareAllis-Chalmers GP, LLC DelawareAllis-Chalmers LP, LLC DelawareAllis-Chalmers Management, LP TexasAllis-Chalmers Production Services, Inc. TexasAllis-Chalmers Rental Services, Inc. TexasAllis-Chalmers Tubular Services, Inc. TexasDLS Argentina Limited British Virgin IslandsDLS Drilling, Logistics and Services Company British Virgin IslandsMountain Compressed Air, Inc. TexasPetro-Rentals, Inc. LouisianaOilQuip Rentals, Inc. DelawareStrata Directional Technology, Inc. TexasTanus Argentina S.A. Argentina
Re: Proposed Carlsbad Energy Center Project , Carlsbad, Ca. Kerry Siekmann t o : Shaheerah Kelly 09/23/2009 02:48 PM

From: Kerry Siekmann <siekmann1@att.net> To: Shaheerah Kelly/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

Thank you so much for your reply. There is another issue I left off in my email. Because the cumulative pollution impacts are not, so far, addressed, that means that this issue has not been addressed when it comes to the Health Risk Assessments from the cumulative impacts. I don't know if this is an EPA issue or not. Kerry Siekmann

--- On Wed, 9/23/09, Kelly.Shaheerah@epamail.epa.gov < K ell y . S haheerah @ epamail

. epa . g ov> wrote: From: Kelly.Shaheerah@epamail.epa.gov <Kelly.Shaheerah@epamail.epa.gov> Subject: Re: Proposed Carlsbad Energy Center Project, Carlsbad, Ca. To: "Kerry Siekmann" <siekmann1@att.net> Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 12:49 PM
Kerry,
I just wanted to confirm that I received the concerns expressed in your e-mail.

************************************ Shaheerah Kelly Air Division (AIR-3) U S EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-947-4156 Fax: 415-947-3579 email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov

From: Kerry Siekmann <siekmann1@att.net> To: Shaheerah Kelly/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Shaheerah Kelly/R9/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 09/22/2009 04:06 PM Subject: Proposed Carlsbad Energy Center Project, Carlsbad, Ca.Dear Ms. Kelly The Final Determination of Compliance has been published by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District. Due to the San Diego rules there is a glaring omission in the report. N owhere do they measure cumulative air pollution impacts from: 1) The proposed Carlsbad Energy Center Project 2) Encina Power Station - Units 4 & 5 (which will continue to run) 3) The I-5 Interstate (which may soon be widened to up to 12 lanes of traffic.) 4) Railroad trains running through the immediate area. 5) The SDG&E service yard. All of these polluters are adjacent to each other at the Encina site, and the neighborhood of Terramar is directly south of the Encina site. The first three listed sources of pollution are the major polluters but it is important to add all p ollution emitters together when looking at cumulative emissions. The question is "Who will look at these cumulative effects?" The San Diego Air Pollution Control District has not! Please help us to address this important issue. Sincerely Kerry Siekmann 5239 El Arbol Dr. Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 siekmann 1 @ att

. net 760-438-5611
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Quest Minerals & Mining Corp., a Utah
corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10KQSB for the year ending December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, William R. Wheeler, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted 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; 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/ William R. Wheeler
-------------------------------------------
William R. Wheeler, Chief Executive Officer
April 21, 2004
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1067 

To amend section 524(c) of title 18, United States Code, to use lawfully 

forfeited drug seizures to increase border security. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2017 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend section 524(c) of title 18, United States Code, 

to use lawfully forfeited drug seizures to increase border 

security. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Build up Illegal Line 

5 Defenses with Assets Lawfully Lifted Act of 2017’’. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1067 IH

1 SEC. 2. RESERVATION OF PORTION OF FORFEITS IN THE 

2 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL ASSET FOR3 FEITURE FUND FOR BUILDING A PHYSICAL 

4 BARRIER OR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY TO 

5 PREVENT ILLEGAL ENTRY OVER OUR SOUTH6 ERN BORDER. 

7 Section 524(c) of title 28, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘, except as 

10 provided in paragraph (12),’’ before ‘‘be available to 

11 the Attorney General’’; and 

12 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(12)(A) Not later than on December 1 of each 

14 year, the Attorney General shall report to Congress 

15 the total of any funds in the Fund as of October 1 

16 which are derived from Mexican cartels. 

17 ‘‘(B) The Attorney General shall conduct an on18 going study with a view to deriving more funds than 

19 have historically been the case for the Fund from 

20 Mexican cartels. The Attorney General shall report 

21 from time to time to Congress any suggestions found 

22 through the study. The first such report shall be 

23 transmitted not later than 180 days after the date 

24 of the enactment of this paragraph. 

25 ‘‘(C) An amount equal to 50 percent of the 

26 total reported under subsection (a) shall be made 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1067 IH

1 available without fiscal year limitation to install ad2 ditional physical barriers and roads (including the 

3 removal of obstacles to detection of illegal entrants) 

4 in the vicinity of the United States border to deter 

5 illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into 

6 the United States.’’. 

7 SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON RELEASE OF PROPERTY. 

8 Section 983(f)(8) of title 18, United States Code, is 

9 amended— 

10 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph 

11 (C); 

12 (2) by striking the period at the end of sub13 paragraph (D) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

14 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

15 ‘‘(E) is currency or contraband likely to 

16 belong to or used in support of a foreign, illegal 

17 trafficking organization.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7847

KIMBERLY D. RATLIFFE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

POCAHONTAS CORRECTIONAL UNIT,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District

Judge. (7:05-cv-00668-jct)

Submitted: May 2, 2007 Decided: June 15, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kimberly D. Ratliffe, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kimberly D. Ratliffe seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ratliffe has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit  99.1

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
         (As adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


For  the  Quarterly Report of Zenex International, Inc.  (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB  for  the  period  ending  March 31, 2003 (the "Report"), the undersigned
Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the Company hereby
certify  that:

(i)   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
      as of and  for  the  periods  covered  in  the  Report.


Dated:  May  20,  2003

                                              /s/  Ron  Carte
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Chief  Executive  Officer


                                              /s/  Debra  G.  Morehead
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Chief  Financial  Officer


A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Zenex International, Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished
to  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or  its  staff  upon  request.

[This  Section  906  certification accompanies the Report, but is not "filed" as
part  of  the  Report.]
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 13, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E69-E70]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                HONORING CADET COLONEL ROBERT J. WILSON

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. FRANK R. WOLF

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, January 13, 2009

  Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to honor my constituent, 
Cadet Colonel Robert Wilson of Chantilly, Virginia, for his remarkable 
achievements as a member of the Civil Air Patrol. At a Pentagon 
presentation and award ceremony on January 5, Cadet Wilson was 
presented with the General Carl A. Spaatz Award. The Spaatz Award is 
the Civil Air Patrol's highest cadet honor, presented to cadets who 
demonstrate extraordinary leadership, character, fitness, and aerospace 
knowledge.
  For every 1,000 cadets, only 2 achieve this distinct honor. Robert 
first joined the Civil Air Patrol in January 2004 where he served with 
distinction in the Fairfax Composite Squadron of the National Capital 
Wing. Upon graduation from high school, he chose to attend Embry-Riddle 
Aeronautical University in Prescott, Arizona, to obtain his bachelor's 
degree in aerospace engineering.

[[Page E70]]

  Robert joined the Air Force Reserve Officers' Training Corps and is a 
member of the Arnold Air Society. He plans to continue his education 
and training to be of service as a U.S. Air Force test pilot. On 
December 18, 2008, Robert successfully completed the Carl A. Spaatz 
Exam, the final stage of a long and grueling journey through 16 
rigorous skill tests. Having overcome this final obstacle, he now joins 
the ranks of the Civil Air Patrol's best and brightest as a recipient 
of the General Carl A. Spaatz Award for outstanding cadets.

                          ____________________
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jason G. Holmquist, Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 682]

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Peter E. Corning, J.), rendered March 19, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [3]), defendant contends that the sentence of an indeterminate term of incarceration of 25 years to life constitutes cruel and unusual punishment as applied to him and is unduly harsh and severe. We disagree. Although the Court of Appeals in *People v Broadie*(37 NY2d 100, 111 [1975], *cert*
      *1042
      *denied*423 US 950 [1975]) recognized that a sentence that is “grossly disproportionate to the crime” may be considered cruel and unusual punishment, this is not one of the rare cases envisaged by *Broadie (see People v Thompson,*83 NY2d 477, 484 [1994]). We further reject defendant’s contention that the bargained-for sentence on the charge as reduced from murder in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.27 [1] [a] [vii]) is unduly harsh or severe. Present—Green, J.P., Fine, Scudder, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.
<!--/* //NOSONAR */-->
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	Ninth U.S.-Vietnam Asia-Pacific Dialogue
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4870" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/Joint/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="aprint news">
    <div class="header">
        <img height="100" class="print-logo" alt="Site Logo" src="/Portals/55/INDOPACOM2018_100x100.png?ver=J6xEsvouw9aaqHcHjhoIIQ%3d%3d" />

        <h1 class="title">Ninth U.S.-Vietnam Asia-Pacific Dialogue</h1>
    </div>
    
<div id="adetail-slick-gallery" class="gallery">
    
    <div class="item">
        
        <div class="image">
            
            <img src="https://media.defense.gov/2022/Aug/31/2003068617/1920/1080/0/220830-D-EV009-0030.JPG"
                 class="aimage img-responsive"
                 alt="U.S.-Vietnam Asia-Pacific Dialogue"
                 itemprop="image" />
        </div>
        
        
        
        
        
        <div class="slide-info-hidden">
            <div class="slide-info-inner">
                
                <div class="image-title">U.S.-Vietnam Asia-Pacific Dialogue</div>
                <div class="image-caption">Ninth U.S.-Vietnam Asia-Pacific Dialogue</div>
            </div>
        </div>
    </div>

    
</div>
<div class="slide-info"></div>





    <div> <span class="date">/ Published Aug. 31, 2022</span></div>
    <span class="dateline-text"></span>
    <p>U.S. Embassy & Consulate in Vietnam -- Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel Kritenbrink welcomed Vietnam Deputy Foreign Minister Nguyen Minh Vu to Washington for the ninth U.S.-Vietnam Asia-Pacific Dialogue on August 30. Reflecting upon the strength of U.S.-Vietnam relations, the Assistant Secretary and Deputy Foreign Minister discussed issues related to the two countries’ shared interest in promoting peace, stability, and prosperity across the region.<br />
<br />
Assistant Secretary Kritenbrink and Deputy Foreign Minister Vu affirmed the importance of continued senior-level engagement between the United States and Vietnam and looked forward to celebrating the 10th anniversary of the U.S.-Vietnam Comprehensive Partnership in 2023. Both sides agreed to reconvene for next year’s Asia-Pacific Dialogue in Vietnam.</p>
<br />
</div>
    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
No. 76-5810.

#### Schmitz *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
  
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           30453
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    70000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                100453
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  206113
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           156443
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         61354
<OTHER-SE>                                      (78447)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    206113
<SALES>                                          70000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 70000
<CGS>                                            27100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    27100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 32544
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2751
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   7605
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     12928
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>