alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32B
 
 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 Quarterly Report of AutoInfo, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William Wunderlich, 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, as amended; and
  (2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
  A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.
  Date:   May 13, 2010
  /s/ William Wunderlich
 William Wunderlich
 Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal Financial Officer)
#### Raulf, Respondent, vs. Chicago Fire Brick Company and another, Appellants.

*January 29*

February *16, 1909.*

*Process: Proving falsity of return of service.*

There is no fixed rule as to the quantum of proof required to establish falsity of an officer’s return. Evidence reasonably, clearly satisfying the trier or triers that the return is false is sufficient.

Aeeeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: Lawrektoe W. Halsey, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Action to enjoin collection of a garnishee judgment.

The claim of the plaintiff upon which issue was joined Was that a garnishee judgment was rendered against him in justice’s court June 28, 1905, in defendant’s favor; that the summons in the garnishee proceedings was not served upon him in any way; that he did not have any notice of either the judgment or the proceedings till June, 1907, when he seasonably commenced this action; that neither when the proceedings were commenced nor thereafter up to and inclusive of the rendition of judgment was he indebted to defendant in the action to which the garnishee action was incident save and except the sum of $7; that the justice was so informed before the judgment was rendered, and that the indebtedness was thereafter paid. The principal controversy was as to whether the return of the officer, that he made personal service on the plaintiff, was false. The court found all the material facts in plaintiff’s favor.

Eor the appellant there was a brief by *Harry M. Sheets,*attorney, and *John A.*McGormiclc, of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Sheets.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Perry & Kroesvng,*and oral argument by *O. B. Perry.*

*127Marshall, J.

It is conceded tbat if the findings of fact «tand the judgment must be. affirmed. There is no question -of law of any moment involved. Sticb questions as there are relate to the quantum of proof required to establish falsity •of an officer’s return. There is no fixed rule as to that. Evidence, reasonably, clearly satisfying the trier or triers that the return i# false, is sufficient. It is the opinion of the court that this appeal is ruled in favor of respondent by the familiar ■principle that a court’s conclusions of fact cannot be disturbed -on appeal unless found to be against the clear preponderance of the evidence. The case does not require discussion of the evidence, and it is thought best to rest with this brief opinion.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1358 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to inter in national cemeteries individuals who supported the 

United States in Laos during the Vietnam War era. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 14, 2015 

Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. 

FRANKEN, and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to inter in national cemeteries individuals who supported the United States in 

Laos during the Vietnam War era. 

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 ‘‘Hmong Veterans’ 

5 Service Recognition Act’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1358 IS

1 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR INTERMENT IN NATIONAL CEME2 TERIES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2402(a) of title 38, 

4 United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 

5 following new paragraph: 

6 ‘‘(10) Any individual— 

7 ‘‘(A) who— 

8 ‘‘(i) was naturalized pursuant to sec9 tion 2(1) of the Hmong Veterans’ Natu10 ralization Act of 2000 (Public Law 106– 

11 207; 8 U.S.C. 1423 note); and 

12 ‘‘(ii) at the time of the individual’s 

13 death resided in the United States; or 

14 ‘‘(B) who— 

15 ‘‘(i) the Secretary determines served 

16 with a special guerrilla unit or irregular 

17 forces operating from a base in Laos in 

18 support of the Armed Forces of the United 

19 States at any time during the period begin20 ning February 28, 1961, and ending May 

21 7, 1975; and 

22 ‘‘(ii) at the time of the individual’s 

23 death— 

24 ‘‘(I) was a citizen of the United 

25 States or an alien lawfully admitted 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1358 IS

1 for permanent residence in the United 

2 States; and 

3 ‘‘(II) resided in the United 

4 States.’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

6 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to an individual 

7 dying on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
99-1186.

#### Engle v. State.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus by Raymond Engle.

*Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C. J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
* 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. 01-10321

c/w 01-10334 

Conference Calendar

 

IN RE: JOHN T. ESPINOZA,

Petitioner,

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

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

to the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

-------------------- ____________________

No. 01-10334

____________________

ACL COMPANY, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOHN T. ESPINOZA,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:01-CV-152

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

February 21, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John T. Espinoza seeks a writ of mandamus vacating the

district court’s order remanding the case to the state court and

ordering the district court to conduct a trial of the matter.
No. 01-10321

c/w

01-10334

-2-

Espinoza is seeking the same relief in his appeal from the

district court’s order remanding the case to the state court. 

Because he has other adequate means to attain the requested

relief, his petition for mandamus is DENIED. See In re Willy,

831 F.2d 545, 549 (5th Cir. 1987). 

Espinoza’s petition for removal asserted that he was

entitled to remove the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). 

Because the pleadings filed at the time the petition for removal

was filed did not reflect that Espinoza was being deprived of his

civil rights based on his race, the district court did not have

subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). See

Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975).

Nor did the pleadings reflect that the district court had

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443(2) because the

pleadings did not reflect that the state officials had violated

any law providing for equal rights or that there was “a colorable

conflict between state and federal law.” Alonzo v. City of

Corpus Christi, 68 F.3d 944, 946 (5th Cir. 1995). Therefore, the

case was not properly removed to the federal court. 

An order of removal is generally not reviewable on appeal or

otherwise. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). However, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)

provides an exception for “an order remanding a case to the State

court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1443.” 

Because the pleadings on file at the time of the removal did not

meet the jurisdictional prerequisites of 28 U.S.C. § 1443, this

court lacks jurisdiction to review the appeal. The appeal is
No. 01-10321

c/w

01-10334

-3-

thus DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The petition for

mandamus is DENIED.
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 Studies: (AF) MOL

/c; 

1111111111111114111

111111111111111 

" (1964 

FIRST ENDORSEMENT on BOWEN ltr H-3610:12 of 13 Mir 1964 

From: Chief of Naval Miterial 

To: Chief, Bureau or Naval Weapons 

Subj: U. S. Navy Field Office for Manned Orbiting story (NDL); 

request for establishFent of 

Ref: (c) CHM ltr NR2 010XL or 2 Mar 1964 to SOUPS, BPIMB 

1. Returned for reconsideration. 

2. As indiceted in referenee WI it is vasseidered desirable that the 

eeting, of added requirements be planned on the boils of aMaismont of 

additional tasks to existing fielit activities vizersier possible, rather 

than establishing nesseparate, sad independent Wilma tar this logro 

poee• It is ammelder4 entirely pew to assign the fug Amami 

for the proposed field arise to the Nava Misfile Center, Point Mho, 

California, vith the staffing, funding, end worisioa at ecesmand and 

supervision tote performed by that activity for the Chief, Bureau at 

Naval Weapons. 

3. To the extent that personnel *Waite assigned tar the geeprephicel 

location of the Air bras Space Systeme Division concerned with the 

Manned Orbiting Laboratory, this ean tosebismed by the provisioner 

a detachment fronithe Nivel Missile Canter for that purpose. 

R. L SWFLEY 

V:CE ::;E7 OF rut= MATERIAL 

copy to: 

comma, LSD, Ion Angeles, Calif. 

Headquarters, USARYCOMAFSC„ Andress APB 

COMAFORD (code Setk-IN) 

COMM, Point asext 

IgSSRL (Colo 7000
THIS
AGREEMENT dated for reference the 21 day of January , 2005
  BETWEEN:
  **ALMADEN
MINERALS LTD.** ,
a corporation with a place of business at 1103 - 750 West Pender
Street,
 Vancouver,
British Columbia V6C 2T8
  (“Almaden”)
  AND:
  **SANTOY
RESOURCES LTD.** ,
a corporation with a place of business at Suite 1116 - 925 West Georgia
Street,
 Vancouver,
British Columbia V6C 3L2
  (“Santoy **”** )
  WHEREAS:
   A.
    Santoy
      (as Successor to Troymin Resources Ltd.) is the beneficial holder of a 25%
      undivided but unrecorded interest in those mineral properties known as
      Prospector Mountain and more particularly described in Schedule “A” and
      hereinafter referred to as the “Property
Interest”. 
 NOW
THEREFORE in consideration of the sum of ten dollars ($ 10.00) of lawful money
of Canada now paid by Almaden to Santoy and other good and valuable
consideration ( the receipt whereof is by Santoy hereby acknowledges) Santoy
hereby transfers, releases and quit claims to Almaden absolutely all right title
and interest in and to the Property Interest
 This
Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and
their respective successors and assignees.
 
  IN
WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement as of the 21 day of
January, 2005.
 
 **ALMADEN
      MINERALS LTD.**Per:
    “Duane
      Poliquin”Authorized
      Signatory
 
 
 **SANTOY
      RESOURCES LTD..**Per:
    “Ronald
      Netolitzky)Authorized
      Signatory
Exhibit 12.2


CERTIFICATIONS

I, Salvador Milan A.,  certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Banco Bilbao Vizcaya
     Argentaria, Chile S.A.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
     statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
     make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
     statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
     this annual report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The company's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the company and have:

     a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
          supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
          registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
          us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this report is being prepared;

     d)   [Reserved]

     e)   evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls and
          procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c)   disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control
          over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by
          this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
          materially affect, the company's internal control over financial
          reporting; and

5.   The company's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
     most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
     company's auditors and the audit committee of the company's board of
     directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a)   all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the company's ability to record,
          process, summarize and report financial information; and

     b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the company's internal
          control over financial reporting.



Date: June 29, 2004
      -----------------

/s/ Salvador Milan A.
-----------------------
[Signature]

Chief Financial Officer
-----------------------
[Title]
7-.11,Luo-J0

111111/ of 6 Copies

1 Page pa4-.3.9,

fax wrrti

coArrthat..--rDit

I

.Jev„ im,swirt

December.4, 1978

re. ilor

11...1.4.&........ 4....10 00 .1. •••••••••

. '

••••• •• ••• .

... ••n••• .. a . .••• • 4...4:4:171CANTON •• . . • .... • ••

‘. • • • • . . . . : • . . . 

.

._:...... ....

I• : •••g 11532

r...... .... ...... . . .._... • . i ). (3),ar (41 .

,. ,_ • . ... . :.......... -..ire :.. ON;

1:. •: ••••••n••••••n••••••n• a I. m• ••• • dm.* .:17...Nr..

I KAT::;:lt,L SECURIT1 INFORMATION I

•

:::•7:1 •

luvotgED

•

Dr. Hans Mark

Room #4C-1000

Dear Dr. Mark:

I appreciate the o ty you gave Mr. Batchelder and me on Thursday,

8 November to present our views on the application of space photography in the civil

sector. We agree fully with your perspective on the merits of starting a remote sensing commercial venture with advanced sensors to high altitude aircraft, evolving

later into flights on the Space Shuttle. As we mentioned, Itek became deeply involved

to the study of such a venture in 1975. Although that project did not come to fruition

then for lack of a high quality cartographic camera, we feel that NASA's purchase of

the Large Format Camera may now make such a venture feasible. We have been discussing this possibility with one of the major U.S. aerial survey firms for several

months, and anticipate an investment decision early in 1979.

r.,

The objective of our briefing to you and others at the policy-maldog level of

government is, however, to illuminate the issued which must be settled if operation

of high quality remote sensors is ever to be extended into space for other than intelligence purposes. We feel there is a place on the commercial marketplace for space

photography, for the reasons discussed to the enclosed LFC booklet. In addition to

technology leadership, the operation we have suggested could relieve pressure on the

NRP to open its programs to civil exploitation and would serve as visible evidence of

successful technology transfer between sectors of the space program.

Having stated our position to you, OMB, and CSTP, we have no further plans

to circulate our concept for photographic operations in space until we see favorable

motion in implementation of the President's space policy. We will meanwhile pursue

several avenues toward broader application of high performance cameras in aircraft,

and may return to you later for advice on the feasibility of leasing government assets

for these ventures.

Thank you again for sharing your views on this subject with us.

Very truly yours,
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Access Control, Critical Area Planting, Fence, Nutrient Management, Spoil Spreading, Waste Transfer, Waste Utilization.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
**EXHIBIT
      32**




**CERTIFICATION**




By
      signing below, each of the undersigned officers hereby certifies pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that, to his or her knowledge, (i) this 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 this report fairly presents, in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      River Valley Bancorp.




Signed
      this 30th day of March, 2006.






/s/
Matthew
              P. Forrester
            
            /s/
Larry
                C. FouseMatthew
                P. Forrester
            
            Larry
                C. FousePresident
                and Chief Executive Officer
            
            Vice
                President of Finance








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to River Valley Bancorp and will be retained
      by River Valley Bancorp and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0100 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ANTHONY CRAIG WEIMER

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 15, 2024 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 5 2024

04/05/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0100
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8591-8592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03325]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security


Materials Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Open Meeting

    The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on March 5, 
2015, 10:00 a.m., Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street 
between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The 
Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export 
Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the 
level of export controls applicable to materials and related 
technology.

Agenda

Open Session

    1. Opening Remarks and Introduction of Dr. Richard Duncan, Director 
Chemical and Biological Controls Division.
    2. Remarks from BIS senior management.
    3. Presentation on NSF Workshop on the Global Movement and Tracking 
of Chemical Manufacturing Equipment in May 2014 by Clara Zahradnik from 
DuPont.
    4. Report from working groups: Public Domain issues, Composite 
Working Group, Biological Working Group, Pump and Valves Working Group.
    5. Report on regime-based activities.
    6. Public Comments and New Business.
    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 
participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the 
conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at Yvette.Springer@

[[Page 8592]]

bis.doc.gov no later than February 26, 2015.
    A limited number of seats will be available during the public 
session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent 
time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the 
Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before 
or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public 
presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests 
that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the 
meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: February 12, 2015.
Yvette Springer,
Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-03325 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
July 25, 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DANIEL EARL CULP , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00365

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

____________ ____________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

.

We further order this decisio n certified below for observance.