alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.35

LOGO

2NDTERRACE WEST, CENTREVILLE

P.O. BOX N-7755

NASSAU, BAHAMAS

TEL. (242) 326
2150

FAX. (242) 326 2151

April 17, 2007

Board of Directors

Moscow CableCom Corp.

590 Madison Ave 38thFloor

New York, NY 10022



|Re: | Moscow CableCom Corp.
|--- | ---------------------

Dear Board of Directors of Moscow CableCom Corp.:

This is a guarantee by Renova Industries Ltd., of the commitment of Renova Media Enterprises Ltd., on behalf of itself and its affiliates (collectively,
Renova Media)set forth in that certain letter dated April 17, 2007, to you (the Commitment Letter).

If Renova
Media does not provide sufficient funding to Moscow CableCom Corp (MOCC)and/or its subsidiaries to ensure that its operations will continue uninterrupted for a period of one year from the Companys filing with the SEC of its
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as required by the Commitment Letter, then MOCC may request in writing that Renova Industries Ltd. provide such funding. Within ten (10) days after receipt of such written request, Renova
Industries Ltd. shall provide such funding to MOCC.

The guarantee provided in this letter shall expire one year from the date MOCC filed with the SEC its
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006.



|                       |  |                 |  |                       |  |        |  |                 
|---------------------- |  | --------------- |  | --------------------- |  | ------ |  | ----------------
|Renova Industries Ltd. |  |                 |  | Moscow CableCom Corp.
|                       |  |                
|/s/ Marco Montanari    |  |                 |  | /s/ Andrew M. OShea 
|By:                    |  |                 |  |                       |  | By:    |  |                 
|Name:                  |  | Marco Montanari |  |                       |  | Name:  |  | Andrew M. OShea
|Title:                 |  | Director        |  |                       |  | Title: |  | Secretary       

LOGO
Human Factors Information System (HFIS)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

From 01/01/2007 to 12/31/2007Page 1 of 210/09/2008 15:22:26

2x N

Total 

N

Document Types: IR, LER IR/LER Category Analysis by Docket Report

N

Average for Se

Details Department Work Type 

Facility Name: Sequoyah 2 Docket (050- 00328)

Communication / IR160 - No communication / information not communicated M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 

16

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Procedures & Reference Document / IR110 - No procedure / reference documents E - Electrical M - Maintenance / Repair 

111 - Procedure / reference document technical content O - Operations O - Control Room Ops 111 - Procedure / reference document technical content O - Operations O - Control Room Ops 111 - Procedure / reference document technical content O - Operations O - Control Room Ops 

424

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Problem Identification & Resolution / IR148 - Action not yet started or untimely M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 

16

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Training / IR101 - Training process problem O - Operations O - Control Room Ops 

101 - Training process problem O - Operations O - Control Room Ops 101 - Training process problem O - Operations O - Control Room Ops 101 - Training process problem O - Operations O - Control Room Ops 

424

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Work Planning & Practices / IR180 - Scheduling and planning LTA M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 

185 - Procedural adherence LTA M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 185 - Procedural adherence LTA M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 186 - Failure to take action / meet requirements D - Emergency Planning Q - Fire Protection 187 - Action implementation LTA G - Engineering G - Design 187 - Action implementation LTA G - Engineering G - Design 

635

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 
Human Factors Information System (HFIS)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

From 01/01/2007 to 12/31/2007Page 2 of 210/09/2008 15:22:26

2x N

Total 

N

Document Types: IR, LER IR/LER Category Analysis by Docket Report

N

Average for Se

Details Department Work Type 

Facility Name: Sequoyah 2 Docket (050- 00328)

Work Planning & Practices / LER187 - Action implementation LTA G - Engineering F - Modification 

16

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Total Items for this Docket: 17
Exhibit 32.1



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 September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Conrad D. Clement, Chief Executive 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.



|                  |  | 
|----------------- |  | 
|November 14, 2003 |  | 
|                  |  | 
|                  |  | 



28
MATERIALS NOT INCLUDED IN

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (AD) DOCKET

FAA-2013-0341

Docket Number

2012-SW-025-AD

Directorate Identifier

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 05A011, Revision 0, dated June 8, 2009 

Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 05A008, Revision 0, dated June 8, 2009

Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. EC120-25A026, Revision 0, dated July 11, 2011

Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. EC130-25A042, Revision 0, dated July 11, 2011

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region

Rules Docket

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663

Fort Worth, Texas 76137

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.
No. 91-6013.

#### Argentina *v.*DeBenedictus.

Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 05802**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 05802\05802_Checklist.xlsx EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 05802\05802_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 05802\05802_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 05802\05802_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05802\05802_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05802\05802_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05802\05802_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05802\05802_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 05802\Certification Statement Plant ID 05802.pdf Plant certification statement x 

### 05802\follow-up\EPA PI ICR review ques_1.doc Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 05802\follow-up\EPA PI ICR review ques_1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 05802\follow-up\Follow-up Questions - Steam Electric Questionnaire -Picway .docx Email communications regarding questions on the survey response x 

### 05802\follow-up\Follow-up Questions - Steam Electric Questionnaire -Picway .pdf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response x 

### 05802\follow-up\Letter.docx Email communications regarding questions on the survey response x 

### 05802\follow-up\Letter.pdf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response

05802\Supplemental Documents\05802_A5-2 Plant Aerial.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 05802\Supplemental Documents\05802_A5-3 WB DIAGRAM.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

05802\Supplemental Documents\05802_AEP ELGs ICR submittal letter 10-13-10.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 05802\Supplemental Documents\05802_D3-1 POND 1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
No. 82-933.

#### Brookside Limited Partnership *v.*United States.

Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-40015

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Ignacio Fuentes-Barriga, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:21-CR-1355-1

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ignacio FuentesBarriga has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Fuentes-Barriga has not filed a response. We have 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 20, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-40015 Document: 00516362555 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2022
No. 22-40015

2

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for 

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. 

R. 42.2.

Case: 22-40015 Document: 00516362555 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2022
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-8034

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

PAUL SCINTO, SR., a/k/a Chemist,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (4:01-cr-00059-H-1)

Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: April 1, 2014

Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Scinto, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Paul Scinto, Sr., appeals the district court’s orders

denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis and denying 

his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Scinto, 

No. 4:01-cr-00059-H-1 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 15 & 30, 2013). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
BobFrizzell FAACoordinator

M-53368
U.S. Department ofTransportation Flight Standard Service Docket Operations, M-30 West Building ground floor, Room W12-140 1200 NewJerseyAvenue, SE. Washington, DC 20590 ; / :.:

__ :**~** . 

# M7
AEROSPACE

AN Ell!rr 5m'EMS OF 1\MERICA,llC,COMPANY

" ;. ,.

Jan. 14,2015

Subject: Docket number FAA-2000-8179, Exemption No. 5367 from 14CFR (FAR Section) 91.531(a) (3), Expiration Date April 30, 2015
DearSiror Madam: In accordance with FAR 11.25, M7 Aerospace requests a renewal of Exemption 5637, which expires on 4/30/2015. That exemption allows M7 Aerospace's type rated company pilots to conduct experimental, maintenance test and ferryflights in the SA227-CC and SA227-DC airplanes without a second in command (SIC). It also permits all operators of M7 Aerospace commuter category airplanes (SA227-CC, SA227-DC and other airplanes on the same type certificate) to conduct flight operations without a designated second-in-command pilot, provided the airplane is type certificated for single-pilot operations and the airplane is carrying nine orfewer passengers. Regulations affected: 14 CFR 91.531 (a)(3) requires two pilots for all large commuter category airplanes having a passenger seating configuration often or more seats, regardless ofthe passenger load orof FAA approval ofthe airplane for single-pilot operation. Reliefsought: M7 Aerospace LLC asks that exemption 5367 be renewed to continue to allow M7 Aerospace's type rated company pilots to conduct experimental, maintenance test, and ferry flights in the SA227-CC and SA227-DC airplanes without a second in command (SIC); and to continue to permit all operators of M7 Aerospace commuterj f.

category airplanes (SA227-CC and SA227-DC and otherairplanes on the same type certificate) to conductflight operations without a designated second-in-command pilot, provided the airplane is type certificated for single-pilot operations and the airplane is carrying nine orfewer passengers. Justification: Thejustification detailed in exemption 5367 remains appropriate and ample. We believe that an extension ofthis exemption will continue to provide M7 Aerospace and ouroperators (meeting the requirements ofthis exemption) increased operating flexibility and reduced economic burdens. Public Interest: An amendment to this exemption will benefitthe public by reducing the cost offlight test and ferrying aircraft and by reducing the cost ofdoing business, a costthat ultimately is passed on to the public. This exemption allows us to conduct all necessaryflight operations in preparation for delivery ofthe airplane to the customer without a second-in-command. The absence ofa second in command does not affect public safety, and reduces the final cost of maintenance ofcustomer's aircraft. Federal Register Summary: Petitioner: M7 Aerospace LLC Section ofthe FAR affected: 14CFR 91.531(a) (3) Description of Relief SoughtTo renew exemption 5367. Yours truly,

Bob Frizzell FAA Coordinator M7 Aerospace LLC 10823 NE Entrance Road San Antonio, TX 78216 Ph:210-249-7329
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Legend International Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), the undersigned, Peter James Lee, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:





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





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








Date:   September 2 , 2009





graphicPeter James LeeSecretary andChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)




70
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, the undersigned certifies that this periodic report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and that information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofAdvent Software, Inc.

| November 9, 2006 | /s/ Stephanie G. DiMarco              |   |
|------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|             | Stephanie G. DiMarco                  |
|             | Chief Executive Officer and President |

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to AdventSoftware, Inc. and will be retained by Advent Software, Inc. and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

                                                                                                            

----
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 L AR R Y W. KI R K, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. R . J . R A C K L E Y ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 15667 D. C . No . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 1 8 6 6 - F C DC MK 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 E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia F r ank C . D a m r e l l , J r . , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d Jul y17, 2012 ** B ef ore: S C H R O E D E R , T H O M A S , an dS IL V E R M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L arryW . K i rk, a C al i forni a s t at e pri soner, appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct co u rt ’ s j u d g m en td i sm i ssi n g h i s 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 act i o n al l eg i n g du e p ro cess v io la tio n s ar is in g f

r o m h is c o n tin u e dc o n f

in e m e n t in a d m in is tr a tiv e s e g r e g a tio n . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o d is m is s a ls 

# FI LED JU L 23 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 15667 2 u n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f

C iv il P r o c e du r e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , W at son v. W ee ks , 436 F . 3d 1152, 1 1 5 7 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) , an dw e a f f i rm. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyd is m is s e dK irk ’s du e p r o c e s s c la im s b e c au s e , to the ext entthathe dem on strat ed a l i berty i nt er es ti n avo i di ng cont i nu ed c onf i ne m e nti n a dm i ni s tr a t i ve s e gr e ga t i on, K i rk’ s c om pl a i ntde m ons tr a t e s tha the w a s a f f o r d e da ll th e p r o c e s s to w h ic h h e w a s c o n s titu tio n a llye n title d . See T ous s ai nt v . Mc Car thy , 801 F . 2d 1080, 1100- 01 ( 9th C i r . 1986) ( e xpl a i ni ng due proces s proce du re s t o w hi ch pri soners w i th l i berty i nt er es t s i n thei r pl ac em ent s are ent i t l ed, and n ot i ng thatsom e s ortof peri od i c r evi ew of an i nm at e’ s c on t i nu ed s e g r e g a te dc o n f

in e m e n t is n e c e s s ary ) , abr ogate d i n par t on othe rgr ounds by Sa nd i n v. C on ner , 51 5 U . S . 47 2 (19 95 ). K irk ’s m o tio n f

o rc lar if ic a tio n o f

in f o rm a tio n , f

ile dJu ly2 8 , 2 0 1 1 , is construed as a r epl y bri ef . AF F I RME D.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-11419 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FABIAN CASTRO-BARRON, 

also known as J. Natividad-Deleon,

also known as Natividad Deleon,

also known as Irineo Tapia-Baron,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:00-CR-143-1-Y

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

August 23, 2001

Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Fabian Castro-Barron appeals the 46-month term of

imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of

being found in the United States after deportation in violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the first time on appeal, Castro-Barron

argues that his guilty plea was involuntary. Castro-Barron

contends that the magistrate judge failed to advise him during

the plea colloquy that a prior aggravated felony conviction is an
No. 00-11419 

-2-

element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), which the

government would have to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable

doubt. Castro-Barron acknowledges that his argument is

foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but seeks to preserve the

issue for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 

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, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). CastroBarron’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.

In lieu of filing an appellee’s brief, the Government has

filed a motion asking this court to dismiss this appeal or, in

the alternative, to summarily affirm the district court’s

judgment. The Government’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. The

motion for a summary affirmance is GRANTED. The Government need

not file an appellee’s brief. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED; MOTION FOR SUMMARY

AFFIRMANCE GRANTED.