alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. § 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cronos Global Income Fund XVI, L.P. (the“Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned, Dennis J. Tietz, the Presidentand Chief Executive Officer of Cronos Capital Corp., the General Partner of the Partnership, andJohn Kallas, Chief Financial Officer of Cronos Capital Corp., certify, based on their knowledge,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 allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operation of thePartnership.     November 13, 2006         By /s/ Dennis J. Tietz             Dennis J. Tietz, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Cronos Capital Corp.,      General Partner of the Partnership             /s/ John Kallas             John Kallas, Chief Financial Officer of Cronos      Capital Corp., General Partner of the Partnership  **A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to thePartnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.** * This certification, required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, other than asrequired by Section 906, shall not be deemed to be “filed” with the Commission or subject tothe rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of said Act.
#### Den *ex dem. of*George Blair v. Elisha P. Miller.

A note given for the payment of rent, and proved *by*the subscribing witness to -have been executed thirty years *ante litem motam,*is competent evidence to prove the date of the lessee’s possession. But it is otherwise as to a recent admission of the lessee.

After the new trial granted in this cause *(ante*2 *vol.*4'0f) it came on to be tried again before bis Honor Judge Daniel, at Burke, on tbe last circuit; when the only question was, as before, whether *Greenlee,*under whom the defendant claimed, had a seven years possession, so as to perfect a paper title originally defective. To establish the commencement of *Greenlee’s*possession, the defendant offered a note given for the rentoftheiandjsigned by one *Elrod*and dated in the year 1800 ; and proved its execution by the deposition of the subscribing witness. No objection was made to the note going to the jury — and a verdict ivas returned for the defendant, .when the plaintiff moved for á new trial because the note was improperly read. Ills Honor discharged the rule, and gave judgment for the- defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

*Seatoell*and *Gaston,*for the plaintiff.

*Badger, canlra.*

Hall, Judge.

Slight mistakes in offering evidence to a jury, and in the examination of witnesses, particularly when not objected to at the time, are not, generally, sufficient reasons for setting aside verdicts, upon objections taken for the first time after the verdicts are recorded.

- In the present case however, it docs not appear that any mistake lias happened. The note was read for no other purpose than to fix the time, from its date, when *Elrod*took possession of the land for which this suit is brought, in order to make out a seven years possession. The note was given by *Elrod*in the year 1800, and its execution proved by the subscribing witness. It cannot be believed that it was *then*given by Elrod, to furnish evidence *at this*day, that *Elrod*was.tenant.-of the land *262at that time. The strong presumption is otherwise. Í admit that an acknowledgment of the note by *Elrod*of recent date would not be sufficient.

I think there is not the smallest pretence for granting á new trial.

Per Curiam — Judgment aeeirmeb.
#### Martinson (Martin), Appellant, vs. Polk County, Respondent.

*March 15*—

April *12, 1938.*

*448
      *W. T. Doar*of New Richmond, for the appellant.

*Charles D.*Madsen, district attorney of Polk county, and *James L. McGinnis*of Amery, for the respondent.

Fairchild, J.

In passing upon the question of the existence of evidence that any negligence of plaintiff was a proximate cause of his injury, we must consider that he was driving over a road used by him many years, that no notice had come to him that a ditch had been cut across the path he had a right to believe still existed. The contour of the land was such that he would naturally be at the point the evidence *449shows he was when the ditch suddenly became apparent. Under the law as outlined in cases mentioned in the companion case, plaintiff was not guilty of any negligence in expecting to travel a road that had been available to him for a long time, and the situation in which he found himself was due entirely to failure on the part of the county to give warning of its construction of what, without such warning, would be something in the nature of a trap. The short distance between him and the danger point at the time he was able to see it left him no opportunity to do anything to save himself. The testimony offered with respect to defective brakes might be of consequence under different circumstances, but not here where he was helpless if his brakes were perfect. Assuming the brakes defective, their condition was not a proximate cause. In view of the failure to give any warning of a dangerous condition in the highway as a result of its operations, the county cannot be heard to claim that plaintiff was negligent in using the highway, and the general situation being such as .to cause the plaintiff to believe that a long-continued condition still existed, he did not fail to exercise ordinary care in that respect. Plaintiff’s motion to change the jury’s answers to the indicated questions relating to proximate cause and the apportionment of the attributable negligence should have been granted by the court. *Tande v. Vernon County,*226 Wis. 602, 276 N. W. 359.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to change the answer to question 5 from Yes to No; the answer to question 10 from fifty per cent to one hundred per cent; to strike out the answers to questions 6 and 11, and to grant plaintiff judgment on the verdict as amended.
#### In the Matter of PLUMB FLOORS, INC., Debtor. PLUMB FLOORS, INC., Plaintiff, v. SALO SERVICE CORP., Defendant.

Bankruptcy No. 82-69.

Adv. No. 82-453.

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division.

Dec. 20, 1982.

*659Jawdet I. Rubaii, Clearwater, Fla., for plaintiff.

Jean Giles Wittner, President of St. Pe-tersburg Federal S & L Assoc., St. Peters-burg, Fla., J. Paul Raymond, Clearwater, Fla., for defendants.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY

ALEXANDER L. PASKAY, Chief Judge.

THE MATTER under consideration is a Motion for Relief from an order heretofore entered by this Court in the above-captioned adversary proceeding. The order dismissed the complaint of the Plaintiff, Plumb Floors, Inc., a Debtor currently involved in a Chapter 11 case on the ground that under the teaching of *Northern Pipeline Construction Co.*v. *Marathon Pipe Line Co.,*- U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2858, 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1981), this Court lacks jurisdiction over the claims set forth in the complaint which is a classic state, common law action.

The Motion filed by the Debtor seeks relief pursuant to Rule 860 of the Bankruptcy Rules and Procedure (sic). The Motion is based on the proposition that by virtue of the stay granted by the Supreme Court in *Marathon,*this Court still has jurisdiction and could try this case prior to December 24, 1982, the new deadline imposed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this case should be tried and the order of dismissal should be vacated.

Relying on the language in Footnote 40 of the plurality opinion, the Defendant contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction to try this case regardless of what action Congress takes and even if Congress constructs a constitutional Article III court, this Court would not have jurisdiction to try the claims set forth in the complaint. A close reading of this footnote clearly indicates, however, that the footnote relates to the Bankruptcy Court as it is now constituted and does not indicate directly or indirectly that the Congress is powerless to vest jurisdiction over this type of claim in an Article Ill court.

The Court having heard argument of counsel for the respective parties and having considered the record, finds that the Plaintiff’s reference to Bankruptcy Rule 860 is misplaced simply because there is no such Rule. The Plaintiff intended to rely on Bankruptcy Rule 924 which adopts F.R. C.P. 60 and which permits a party under certain specific conditions to obtain relief from a judgment within one year from the date of entry of the judgment.

While this Court is in agreement with several courts that during the period of the stay granted by the Supreme Court, this Court is authorized to exercise the jurisdiction governed by § 241(a) of the Bankruptcy Reform Act, this Court should not exercise this jurisdiction due to the difficulty to try this case prior to December 24, 1982 because of currently congested calendar.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Motion for Relief From Automatic Stay Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 860 be, and the same hereby is, denied.
Exhibit 8.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|                                                  |  |                              
|------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|NAME OF ENTITY                                    |  | JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
|Chunghwa International Yellow Pages Corporation   |  | Taiwan                       
|                                                  | 
|Chunghwa System Integration Co., Ltd.             |  | Taiwan                       
|                                                  | 
|Era Light Development Co., Ltd.                   |  | Taiwan                       
|                                                  | 
|Chief Telecom Inc.                                |  | Taiwan                       
|                                                  | 
|Spring House Entertainment Inc.                   |  | Taiwan                       
|                                                  | 
|Senao International Co., Ltd.                     |  | Taiwan                       
|                                                  | 
|Unigate Telecom Inc.                              |  | Taiwan                       
|                                                  | 
|A-Kuei Publishing Co., Ltd.                       |  | Taiwan                       
|                                                  | 
|New Prospect Investments Holdings Ltd.            |  | British Virgin Islands       
|                                                  | 
|Prime Asia Investments Group Ltd.                 |  | British Virgin Islands       
|                                                  | 
|Spring House Entertainment Inc. (BVI)             |  | British Virgin Islands       
|                                                  | 
|Concord Technology Co., Ltd.                      |  | Brunai                       
|                                                  | 
|Chief Telecom (Hong Kong) Limited                 |  | Hong Kong                    
|                                                  | 
|Donghwa Telecom Co., Ltd.                         |  | Hong Kong                    
|                                                  | 
|Spring House Entertainment Inc. (Japan)           |  | Japan                        
|                                                  | 
|Glory Network System Service (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. |  | Shanghai                     
|                                                  | 
|Chunghwa Telecom Global, Inc.                     |  | United States
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 # 20877 and # 20878; ALASKA Disaster Number AK-20008]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Alaska (FEMA-4846-DR), dated November 13, 2024. *Incident:*
                         Landslides.
 DATES: Issued on November 13, 2024. *Incident Period:*
                         August 25, 2024. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         January 13, 2025. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         August 13, 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: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on November 13, 2024, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications online using the MySBA Loan Portal 
                    *https://lending.sba.gov*
                     or other locally announced locations. Please contact the SBA disaster assistance customer service center by email at 
                    *disastercustomerservice@sba.gov*
                     or by phone at 1-800-659-2955 for further assistance. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Ketchikan Gateway Borough. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
3.250Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.250*For Economic Injury:*Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.250
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 208779 and for economic injury is 208780. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Alejandro Contreras, Acting Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience.


[FR Doc. 2024-27034 Filed 11-19-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
J-A16041-17

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

S.M.B.,

 Appellee

v.

J.M.K.,

 Appellant

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

: PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 1810 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Order Entered October 31, 2016

in the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County,

Domestic Relations, at No(s): Docket Number: 00420 DR 2016

PACSES Case Number 651109912

BEFORE: STABILE, J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., and STRASSBURGER,* J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 7, 2017

J.M.K. (Father) appeals from the October 31, 2016 order1that denied 

his objection to the registration in Mercer County of an order for child 

support entered by the trial court in Lawrence County in favor of S.M.B. 

(Mother). Because Appellant failed to appear for oral argument before this 

Court despite having acknowledged that he received notice of its scheduled 

date and time, we dismiss this appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2314 (“If appellant or 

the moving party is not ready to proceed when a case is called for oral 

argument, the matter may be dismissed as of course.”).

Appeal dismissed. 

 

1 The order is dated October 28, 2016, but was not filed until October 31, 

2016. We have amended the appeal paragraph accordingly.
J-A16041-17

- 2 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/7/2017
# Delegation of Authority Under Section 614(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 621 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State the authority under section 614(a)(1) of the FAA to determine whether it is important to the security interests of the United States to furnish up to $76 million in assistance to Ukraine without regard to any provision of law within the purview of section 614(a)(1) of the FAA.

                    You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the                     *Federal Register*.                

[FR Doc. 2024-27438

Billing code 4710-10-P
June 25, 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF L .E.R., A CHILD

NO. 14

- 15

- 00205

- CV

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights signed February 24, 2015 , was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. We further order that mandate be issued immediately.
HILLSBOROUGH,

OCTOBER TERM, 1794.

#### Flowers *v.*Glasgow.

On demand, previous to bringing detinue, Defendant acknowledged, that the negroes Were in his possession. Proof, that he had given one of the negroes to his son-in-law, who was in possession of him at the time of the demand, shall not prevent the Defendant’s liability to the action-.

Detinue. This cause now came on to be tried upon the general issue, and the proof of the demand made by the Plaintiff previous to the institution of his action was, that Plaintiff demanded the negroes *(James*and *Dempsey J*of the Defendant, who acknowledged they were both in his possession, and said he should not deliver them ; and that this demand was in January or February, 1787. The Defendant then proved, that two years before that period he had given *James*to his son-in-law, *Mr. Williams,*and had at the same time given him possession, which lie had continued ever since; and that the negro *James,*in January and February, 1787, was in *William’s*possession. — it was argued by General *Davie,*that *Glasgow,*as a parent, was willing and intended to undertake the defence of the action himself, and his acknowledgment must be taken as evidence to that amount. *Et per curiam,*Ashe and Wiiliams — The evidence'must be so understood ; and they directed the jury that this evidence was sufficient proof of the possession having been in the Defendant at that time but the cause for another reason, was adjourned.

Note. — Judge Williams said in this case, upon another part of the argument, that he should yield to the decision in the case of *Timms*and *Potter,*until it should be contradicted by a more full derision to the contrary. It was decided by two Judges, Ashe and Smhoab, against his opinion.
Exhibit 99.8

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Stantec Inc. (the Company) is filing its annual report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 (the
Report) with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

I, Daniel J. Lefaivre, Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of 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:



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                             |  | 
|----------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Date: February 25, 2015 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Daniel J. Lefaivre                                                      |  | 
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | DANIEL J. LEFAIVRE, FCMA
Executive Vice President & Chief Financial
Officer |  |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 29, 1996 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 (UNAUDITED) AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS
PART OF ITS REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 29, 1996 TO SEPTEMBER 30,
1996
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         805,109
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  260,523
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,065,632
<PP&E>                                      23,304,430
<DEPRECIATION>                                 545,765
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,901,704
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,083,862
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,817,842
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,901,704
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               685,769
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  603,298
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   123,008
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>