alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001107343
<NAME>                        Lautrec, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Currency

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Sep-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Oct-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         5,969
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,969
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,969
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       600
<OTHER-SE>                                     3,969
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,969
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6,031
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,031)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,031)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
```
**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 HydroFlo, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Dennis Mast, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, 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.

/s/ Dennis Mast
    Dennis Mast
    Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
    May 19, 2003
```
**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**

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                 *Richard                E. Bagley*                                           |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Richard                E. BagleyPrincipal                Financial OfficerMay                12, 2008 |   |   |

----
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**RULE      13a-14(b)/15d-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934      AND**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

|                                   | (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:                November 19, 2007 | By:                                                                      | /s/                Jae Hong Yoo                                                                                                                                                                   |
|                                   | Jae                Hong Yoo                                                        |
|                                   | Chief                Financial Officer(Principal                Financial Officer) |

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 14, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 34576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14552]

[[Page 34576]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 1 and 93

[Docket No. FAA-2004-17005; Amdt. No. 1-63 and 93-90]
RIN 2120-AI17

Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules Area; OMB 
Approval of Information Collection

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Change of OMB approval number for information collection.

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

SUMMARY: This document notifies the public of a change in the Office of 
Management and Budget's approval control number for certain information 
collection. The rule titled ``Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Special 
Flight Rules Area'' was published on December 16, 2008. At that time, 
the final rule identified OMB Control Number 2120-0706 as the approval 
document for the flight plans and other information collected under 
that rule. That information collection, however, is accounted for under 
OMB Control Number 2120-0026.

DATES: The rule, including the information collection requirements in 
Sec. Sec.  93.335, 93.339, 93.341, and 93.343, became effective on 
February 14, 2009. This document announces that the OMB approval for 
Domestic and International Flight Plans, 2120-0026, accounts 
for the paperwork burden in that rule.

Contact for Further Information: For questions about this document, 
contact Ellen Crum, Airspace and Rules Group, Office of System 
Operations Airspace and AIM, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 
20591; telephone (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 16, 2008, the final rule 
``Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Special Flights Rules Area'' was 
published in the Federal Register (75 FR 76195). In that rule, the FAA 
codified special flight rules and airspace and flight restrictions for 
certain aircraft operations in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area.
    In the Paperwork Reduction Act section of the final rule, the FAA 
noted that the flight plans and other information collection that the 
rule required had been approved by OMB. It said that ``OMB approved the 
collection of this information and assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0706.''
    OMB information collection control 2120-0026 covers 
Domestic and International Flight Plans collection. Thus, the flight 
plans required for the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Special Flight 
Rules Area are covered by information collection control 2120-
0026. As a result, the FAA is withdrawing and discontinuing OMB control 
2120-0706.
    This document is being published to inform affected parties of this 
change.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 7, 2011.
Dennis R. Pratte,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-14552 Filed 6-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3967 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 299
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3967

                      [Report No. 111-526, Part I]

 To amend the National Great Black Americans Commemoration Act of 2004 
         to authorize appropriations through fiscal year 2015.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 29, 2009

 Mr. Cummings (for himself, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Ms. Norton, 
and Mr. Payne) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on the 
 Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 
 in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

                             July 13, 2010

            Reported from the Committee on Natural Resources

                             July 13, 2010

  Committee on the Judiciary discharged; committed to the Committee of 
  the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the National Great Black Americans Commemoration Act of 2004 
         to authorize appropriations through fiscal year 2015.

 

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2015.

    Section 3(c) of the National Great Black Americans Commemoration 
Act of 2004 is amended by striking ``2009'' and inserting ``2015''.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 299

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3967

                      [Report No. 111-526, Part I]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To amend the National Great Black Americans Commemoration Act of 2004 
         to authorize appropriations through fiscal year 2015.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 13, 2010

            Reported from the Committee on Natural Resources

                             July 13, 2010

  Committee on the Judiciary discharged; committed to the Committee of 
  the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION (DAYTON)

AMERICAN POWER, LLC

Plaintiff,

v.

DOUGLAS O. HARRIS, et al.

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:17-cv-00347-MJN-SLO 

DEKTRIX LLC 

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN POWER, et al.

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

and

Case No. 3:21-cv-00021 

CONSOLIDATED

District Judge Michael J. Newman

ORDER OF DISMISSALS OF CERTAIN PARTIES AND CLAIMS

On the stipulation of the Plaintiff American Power LLC and Defendants Douglas O.

Harris, Murray J. Crane, Mike Morley, Scott Larson, Dektrix LLC (“Dektrix”), Dektrix

Transportation Services LLC (“Dektrix Trans”), and Dektrix Intermodal LLC (“Dektrix

Intermodal”), 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED dismissing without prejudice Defendant Scott Larson from

all claims in Case No. 3:17-cv-00347.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice Defendants Douglas O.

Harris, Murray J. Crane, Mike Morley, Scott Larson, Dektrix Transportation Services LLC

(“Dektrix Trans”), and Dektrix Intermodal LLC (“Dektrix Intermodal”), from Count IV (Breach

1

Case: 3:17-cv-00347-MJN-SLO Doc #: 81 Filed: 03/26/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 1161
of Contract) in Case No. 3:17-cv-00347.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT In connection with these dismissals each party will

bear its own costs. 

2

March 26, 20121 s/Michael J. Newman

Hon. Michael J. Newman

United States District Judge

Case: 3:17-cv-00347-MJN-SLO Doc #: 81 Filed: 03/26/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 1162
Exhibit 32.1



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 Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen Wong, 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                      |  |                 
|------------------------------------- |  | ----------------
|By:                                   |  | /s/ Stephen Wong
|Stephen Wong                         
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|Date: January 18, 2005
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: December 4, 2014 5 18773

________________________________ In the Matter of ROLAND MARTIN, Appellant, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.

________________________________ Calendar Date: October 21, 2014 Before: Peters, P.J., Stein, Garry, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ.

__________ Roland Martin, Wallkill, appellant pro se.

__________ Appeals (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Gilpatric, J.), entered February 18, 2014 in Ulster County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, sua sponte, dismissed the petition, and (2) from a judgment of said court, entered May 6, 2014 in Ulster County, which denied petitioner's motion to renew. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the omission of merit time eligibility in the computation of his sentence. He failed to serve respondents as required by the order to show cause, prompting Supreme Court to dismiss the petition sua sponte. Supreme Court, in a separate judgment, denied petitioner's subsequent motion to renew. Petitioner now appeals from both judgments. Initially, we note that there is "no right of appeal from an ex parte [judgment/order], including [one] entered sua-2- 518773

sponte," such as Supreme Court's dismissal of the petition here (Sholes v Meagher, 100 NY2d 333, 335 [2003]; see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; [b] [1]; Matter of Barnes v Schroyer, 120 AD3d 1492, 1492 [2014]). Under the circumstances presented here, we decline to treat the notice of appeal from that judgment as an application for leave to appeal (see CPLR 5701 [c]; Matter of Barnes v Schroyer, 120 AD3d at 1492). Petitioner sought renewal pursuant to CPLR 2221 and, while perhaps more properly viewed as one to vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015, the judgment denying that motion presents the salient issues for review. Turning to Supreme Court's denial of that motion, we affirm. "The failure of an inmate to serve papers as directed by an order to show cause requires the dismissal of the petition on jurisdictional grounds, absent a showing by the inmate that imprisonment presented an obstacle to compliance" (Matter of Rodriguez v Fischer, 117 AD3d 1298, 1298 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Petitioner failed to comply with the service requirements of the order to show cause and, contrary to his assertion, the evidence presented in his motion indicated that the obstacles preventing him from complying with those requirements were self-created. Thus, Supreme Court properly denied petitioner's motion (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; 5015 [a] [2]). Peters, P.J., Stein, Garry, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ., concur.-3- 518773

ORDERED that the appeal from the judgment entered February 18, 2014 is dismissed, without costs. ORDERED that the judgment entered May 6, 2014 is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4186 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for 2 years the 

treatment of certain farming business machinery and equipment as 5- 

year property for purposes of depreciation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 2, 2009 

Mr. POMEROY (for himself, Mr. HERGER, Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN, and Mr. 

BRALEY of Iowa) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

for 2 years the treatment of certain farming business 

machinery and equipment as 5-year property for purposes of depreciation. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN FARMING BUSINESS MACHINERY AND 

4 EQUIPMENT TREATED AS 5-YEAR PROPERTY. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Clause (vii) of section 

6 168(e)(3)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defin7 ing 5-year property) is amended by striking ‘‘January 1, 

8 2010’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 1012’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4186 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

3 December 31, 2009. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### Prudential Securities Credit Corp., LLC, Respondent, v Teevee Toons, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[772 NYS2d 821]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered September 24, 2003, which, in an action to enforce a security agreement, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and directed that certain collateral held by defendants be turned over to plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly held that no issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiff waived its right to foreclose on the security after defendants defaulted or agreed to a restructuring of the loan. There are no writings evidencing the alleged oral waiver to forbear and few specific details are provided as to exactly when and how it was communicated *(compare Nassau Trust Co. v Montrose Concrete Prods. Corp.,*56 NY2d 175, 180-181, 186 *227[1982] [distinguishing waiver from modification and citing *Rose v Spa Realty Assoc., 42*NY2d 338, 343 (1977)]). At best, negotiations continued after defendant borrower defaulted, which, apparently, caused defendants “to hope that plaintiff, out of self-interest if not magnanimity, would understand the mutual advantages to be gained by an extension” *(National Westminster Bank USA v Vannier Group,*160 AD2d 348, 350 [1990]). That hope, and the original agreement’s requirement that defendant borrower maintain a certain asset to debt service ratio, are possible explanations, other than the alleged oral assurances, for defendant parent corporation’s infusion of fresh money into defendant borrower (see *id.*at 349-350, citing *Rose, 42*NY2d at 344; *Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v Gramercy Twins Assoc.,*199 AD2d 214, 217-218 [1993]). The instances of bad faith alleged by defendants, to the extent they are more than conclusory, show nothing more than commercially reasonable conduct on the part of a lender seeking to recover as much of its loan as possible.

We have considered defendants’ other claims and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Williams, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2


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



In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of RDC  International,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony Cella, Chief Financial Officer (or
the equivalent thereof) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that, to
the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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.




/s/ Anthony Cella
-------------------------
Anthony Cella
Chief Financial Officer (or the equivalent thereof)
February 17, 2004
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:17-cr-207-4

Oscar Alipio Chila-Mendez 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 98) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the indictment, and he is

hereby adjudged guilty on that count. The court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: May 11, 2018 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge