alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.2

Certification of the Principal Financial Officer of

Videotron Ltd.

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 of Videotron Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ending
December 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Hugues Simard, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 20, 2015



/s/ Hugues SimardName: Hugues Simard Title:
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2472 

To prohibit the non-consensual release of claims by States, municipalities, 

federally recognized Tribes, or the United States against non-debtors, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 26, 2021 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself and Ms. WARREN) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit the non-consensual release of claims by States, 

municipalities, federally recognized Tribes, or the United 

States against non-debtors, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Stop shielding Assets 

5 from Corporate Known Liability by Eliminating non-debt6 or Releases Act’’ or the ‘‘SACKLER Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. NON-DEBTOR RELEASES. 

8 (a) PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN NON-DEBTOR RE9 LEASES.—Section 105(b) of title 11, United States Code, 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2472 IS

1 is amended by striking ‘‘a court may not’’ and all that 

2 follows, and inserting the following: ‘‘a court may not— 

3 ‘‘(1) appoint a receiver in a case under this 

4 title; or 

5 ‘‘(2) except as provided by section 524(g) of 

6 this title, enjoin or release a claim against a non7 debtor by a State, municipality, federally recognized 

8 Tribe, or the United States.’’. 

9 (b) TEMPORARY STAY ON ACTIONS AGAINST NON10 DEBTORS.—Section 105 of title 11, United States Code, 

11 is amended by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(e) Notwithstanding subsection (b)(2), a court may 

13 issue an order staying, for a period not to exceed 90 days, 

14 the commencement or continuation, including the issuance 

15 or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or 

16 other action or proceeding by a State, municipality, feder17 ally recognized Tribe, or the United States against a non18 debtor that was or could have been commenced before the 

19 commencement of the case under this title, or to recover 

20 a claim against a non-debtor that arose before the com21 mencement of the case under this title.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHNATHAN ANDREW DOODY, 

Petitioner-Appellant, No. 06-17161

v. D.C. No.

DORA B. SCHRIRO; MEGAN SAVAGE;  CV-98-00528-EHC

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE ORDER STATE OF ARIZONA,

Respondents-Appellees. 

Filed May 12, 2009

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge: 

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it

is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit

Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as

precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit. 

Judges Hawkins and Silverman did not participate in the

deliberations or vote in this case.

5901
PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-40414

Summary Calendar

Matthew Roppolo, et al.

Plaintiffs,

versus

Medical Director Lannette Linthicum; Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice; Ben Raimer; Cynthia 

Jumper; Rodney Burrow; F. Parker Hudson III; Erin 

Wyrick; John Burruss; Preston Johnson, Jr.; Kelly 

Garcia; Owen Murray; University of Texas Medical 

Branch Correctional Managed Care; Dee Budgewater; 

Philip Keiser, 

Defendants—Appellees,

versus

Julian Dominguez,

Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:19-CV-262

Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 5, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-40414 Document: 00516422036 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2022
No. 21-40414

2

Per Curiam:*

Julian Dominguez, former Texas prisoner # 497927, is a class member 

in a class action alleging that inmates received inadequate medical treatment 

while in state custody. He now appeals the district court’s approval of the 

class-action settlement. He has also filed a motion for the appointment of 

counsel on appeal, or, in the alternative, for a stay of the appeal until he is 

able to hire an attorney. Because Dominguez has not demonstrated 

exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel, we deny 

his request. Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). We also 

deny his alternative motion to stay the appeal. 

We review a district court’s approval of a class-action settlement for 

abuse of discretion. See Ayers v. Thompson, 358 F.3d 356, 368 (5th Cir. 2004). 

Dominguez has not presented any argument that the district court’s ruling 

was an abuse of discretion. He has therefore abandoned, by failure to brief, 

any challenge to the approval of the settlement. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 

222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 

813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, and Dominguez’s 

motions are DENIED.

* 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.

Case: 21-40414 Document: 00516422036 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2022
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 01, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 01, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17I0052. KE TAO v. STACY AARON et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

STCV1501567
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2355 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2355

To require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration make 
  a technical correction to the Restaurant Revitalization program to 
 allow distilleries that are prohibited by State law from meeting the 
   onsite sales requirements under the program to participate in the 
                                program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 15, 2021

 Ms. Cantwell introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration make 
  a technical correction to the Restaurant Revitalization program to 
 allow distilleries that are prohibited by State law from meeting the 
   onsite sales requirements under the program to participate in the 
                                program.

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

SECTION 1. RESTAURANT REVITALIZATION.

    The Administrator of the Small Business Administration shall amend 
the rules relating to the Restaurant Revitalization program under 
section 5003 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 117-2; 
135 Stat. 85; 15 U.S.C. 9009c) to allow a distillery that is located in 
a State the law of which sets a limit on the percentage of the gross 
receipts of a distillery that may come from onsite sales that is less 
than 33 percent to qualify as an eligible entity under such section if 
the combined total of the gross receipts of the distillery from onsite 
sales and sales to retailers for onsite sale is not less than 33 
percent.
                                 <all>
```
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

GULF COAST AUTO BROKERS, INC.,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v.

FULL SPECTRUM AUTO FINANCE, INC.,

Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 2D23-927

March 13, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Stephen Walker, 

Judge.

Gregg M. Horowitz, Sarasota, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Dana J. Watts of Ulrich, Scarlett, Watts & Dean, P.A., Sarasota, for 

Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, LaROSE, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur. 

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
NO. SCPW-11-0000030

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

MATTHEW MURASKO, ALANE PODOLL and KYLE PODOLL,

Petitioners,

vs.

THE HONORABLE RHONDA I.L. LOO, JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT

COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I;

PAT CURELL and ROSINELI CURELL, Respondents.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(DC-TRO 10-1-0202)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.

and Circuit Judge Nacino, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of the motion for reconsideration,

filed on March 17, 2011 by respondents Pat Curell and Rosineli

Curell, and the record,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for

reconsideration is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 24, 2011.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.

/s/ Edwin C. Nacino

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-11-0000030

24-MAR-2011

01:56 PM
# C_2014160EN.01000201.xml

| 27.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 160/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 160/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

26 May 2014

(2014/C 160/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3635 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 138,97 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4637 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,80990 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0371 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2210 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1245 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,421 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 302,77 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1550 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4075 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8467 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4761 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4812 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5718 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5955 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7085 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 396,64 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,1090 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,5071 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5915 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 787,45 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3768 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,568 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 46,6175 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,432 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0288 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,5305 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 80,0579 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3635

JPY

Japanese yen

138,97

DKK

Danish krone

7,4637

GBP

Pound sterling

0,80990

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0371

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2210

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1245

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,421

HUF

Hungarian forint

302,77

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1550

RON

Romanian leu

4,4075

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8467

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4761

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4812

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5718

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5955

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7085

KRW

South Korean won

1 396,64

ZAR

South African rand

14,1090

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,5071

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5915

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 787,45

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3768

PHP

Philippine peso

59,568

RUB

Russian rouble

46,6175

THB

Thai baht

44,432

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0288

MXN

Mexican peso

17,5305

INR

Indian rupee

80,0579

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17E0010. WILLIAMS v. THE STATE.

Elbert L. Williams has filed in this Court a Petition For a Writ of Mandamus,

seeking the issuance of an order directing the trial judge to order the district attorney

to respond to a pleadingWilliams filed and the trial court already purportedly ruled on.

We lack jurisdiction ofthis case.Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy thatfalls

within our Supreme Court’s general appellate jurisdiction. See Stendahl v. Cobb

County, 284Ga. 525, n. 1 (668 SE2d 723) (2008) (citation omitted); Ga. Const. of 1983,

Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (5). It is for the Supreme Court to determine whether

Williams has properly complied with any requisite procedure to invoke its jurisdiction.

SeeHoward v. Fuller, S08O0357 (decided, November 30, 2007)(reiteratingprocedure

to be followed before seeking to invoke Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue

a writ of mandamus against a trial judge). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby

TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/02/2016

November 02, 2016
Motion Granted; Order filed April 14, 2020 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00054-CV

____________

DAVID GREEN, ANNIE M. BRANCH A/K/A ANNIE GREEN, CHANDRA 

WARE D/B/A SAPPHIRE REALTY A/K/A SAPPHIRE REALTY 

HOUSTON AND D'ADREINNE M. TRUITT-SWEATT, Appellants

V.

TAMEIKA EVANS AND DAVID EVANS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT 

FRIEND OF DAVION EVANS, A MINOR CHILD, TIMOTHY 

EVANS, A MINOR CHILD, UNIQUE EVANS, A MINOR CHILD, 

DAVID EVANS, II, A MINOR CHILD, AND TATIANA EVANS, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 11th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-26231

ORDER

On March 31, 2020, this court issued an opinion dismissing this appeal. On

April 1, 2020, appellant filed a motion for rehearing. The motion is GRANTED. 

This court’s opinion filed March 31, 2020 is WITHDRAWN, and our 

judgment of that date is VACATED. The appeal is ordered REINSTATED. 

The appellant’s brief is due May 14, 2020. 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Poissant.
# CA2014163EN.01001001.xml

| 28.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 163/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 163/10

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OFFICIAL JOURNALS

2014/C 163 A/03

Please find below the list of C A Official Journals published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Official Journals are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

---
·-

REF ID:A68jp3 

.,. 

~rial:.1165 

Dr~ Bay 1£. &nith - Assistant Deari, Rollins College · ·:ranter Park, Florida.. 

Dear F.qt 

:. ~l~G 1951 

Immedia~·rollowing your te1epbone call I took up with 

ASA μeadquarters the raat.ter of. the possibility of·6$tablishing : · 

an ASA liOTC Unit at Rollins. I :regret to have to inrQl"ll. you 

that the ASA authorities would have considerable difficulty in 

·justifying the necessity :far sueh a unit because it is alree.dy' 

over strength in its ?'$Sen'& canponents. 'lheretore"' a reque~. 

to ASA or to eome' atithor~ty higher than ASA, for the establishment of an additional ASA ROTC Unit~,. would no doubt 

be W'llriae at this ti&e. rn· tbis connection, I J!la3' add that ~ther and large universit7 out in the l!iddl.e -rrest made a 

sirdla.r request ver,, recently and "Was turned down .. 

Regretting. t~t I Caimot give you a more favorable answer 

to your query, and with cordial ~tings, I a111 

~ineerel7, · 

. W ILLIJil.r F,. FRIEDT.!'AN . · . - _ ·. Technical Consultant , 

. ' ... ~ ' .. 

' . 

William F. Friedman/ef /31 Jul 51 

_AFS.A-:o6T,~Ext 60240 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 04-01-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a ~ - . . .
#### Ames. Respondent, vs. Meehan and others, Appellants.

*May 5*

*June 1, 1885.*

*Costs: Jurisdiction of J. P.*

A justice of the peace has no jurisdiction of an action for the conversion of timber wherein the title to land is put in issue by the pleadings and necessarily litigated and determined on the trial; and if the plaintiff recover in such action in the circuit court, he is entitled to costs, without regard to the amount of the recovery.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Portage*County.

The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion.

The cause was submitted for the appellants on the brief of *G. W. Gate,*and for the resjiondent on briefs by *Pilce & Yam, Keuren.*

LyoN, J.

This appeal presents for determination only a question of costs. The action is to recover the value of certain timber wrongfully cut upon and taken from the *409plaintiff’s land, and alleged to have been converted by tbe defendants. It was brought in the circuit court, and the plaintiff recovered a judgment for $38.15 damages, and for full costs taxed at $150.90.

This being an action for a tort, and the damages recovered being less than $50, it is claimed that the defendants were entitled to costs. This is a correct proposition if the action was within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace. R. S. sec. 2918, subds. 3, 5; sec. 2920.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is the owner of the land upon which the timber in question was wrongfully cut. The answer is that the defendants “have no knowledge ” as to whether he is such owner or not. This special averment is defective as a denial of ownership, in that it fails to allege a want of information, as weE as knowledge. R. S. sec. 2655. But the answer also contains a general denial, and this puts in issue the title of the owner. There is no bid of exceptions in the case, but the record shows a special verdict, in which the first fact found is that the plaintiff is the owner of the land described in the complaint. Thus it appears that the question of title was put in issue by the pleadings, and was necessarily Etigated and determined on the trial.

A justice of the peace has no jurisdiction over such an action (R. S. sec. 3513, subd. 3), and hence costs were properly awarded to the plaintiff, without regard to the amount of his recovery.

*By the*Court.— Judgment affirmed.
98-1446.

#### Victoria Plaza L.P. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 96-B-641. On motion to withdraw as counsel by Thomas A. Kondzer and Kimberley A. Aldrich. Motion granted.

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.
November 22, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE MATTER OF J.L.U.

NO. 14-16-00876-CV 

________________________________

Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

order signed by the court below on September 29, 2016 waiving juvenile 

jurisdiction and transferring appellant to criminal district court. Having considered 

the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit 13.1

Certification of the Principal Executive Officer of

Videotron Ltd.

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 of Videotron Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ending
December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert Dépatie, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 21, 2012



/s/ Robert DépatieName:

Robert DépatieTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.