alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906

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), each of the undersigned officers of Orchid Cellmark Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge,
that:

The Quarterly Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                                                                                  
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 9, 2006 |  | /S/ THOMAS A. BOLOGNA                                                            
|                      |  | Thomas A. Bologna Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)          
|                      | 
|Dated: August 9, 2006 |  | /S/ JOHN C. DEIGHAN                                                              
|                      |  | John C. Deighan Corporate Controller (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 136-137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28439]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-289, OMB Control No. 3235-0327]


Submission for OMB Review Comment Request; Extension: Form SE

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved 
collection of information discussed below.
    Form SE (17 CFR 239.64) is used by registrants to file paper copies 
of exhibits, reports or other documents that would be difficult or 
impossible to submit electronically, as provided in Rule 311 of 
Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.311). The information contained in Form SE 
is used by the Commission to identify paper copies of exhibits. Form

[[Page 137]]

SE is a public document and is filed on occasion. Form SE is filed by 
individuals, companies or other entities that are required to file 
documents electronically. Approximately 19 registrants file Form SE and 
it takes an estimated 0.10 hours per response for a total annual burden 
of 2 hours (0.10 hours per response x 19 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information 
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this 
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day 
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. 
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) David Bottom, 
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, 
c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by sending 
an email to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#68383a2937250901040a0710281b0d0b460f071e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="80d0d2c1dfcde1e9ece2eff8c0f3e5e3aee7eff6">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: December 28, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-28439 Filed 12-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 16 (Thursday, January 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 5242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01378]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

32nd Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 206, Aeronautical 
Information and Meteorological Data Link Services

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 206, Aeronautical 
Information and Meteorological Data Link Services.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
thirty-second meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 206, Aeronautical 
Information and Meteorological Data Link Services.

DATES: The meeting will be held February 11-15, 2013 from 8:30 a.m.-
5:00 p.m. (except Monday).

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Delta Airlines Headquarters, 
1030 Delta Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30354.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 330-
0652/(202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org. In addition, Sophie Bousquet may be contacted directly at 
email sbouquet@rtca.org or (202) 330-0663.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 206. The agenda will 
include the following:

Monday, February 11, 2013

9:00 a.m. Opening Plenary
     Chairmen's remarks and host's comments
     Attendee Introductions
     Approval of previous meeting minutes
     Review and approve meeting agenda
     Action item review
     TOR change
     Sub-Group status and week's plan
10:30 a.m. Break
10:45 a.m. Sub-groups meetings

Tuesday, February 12

8:30 a.m.-3:00 p.m. Sub-groups meetings

Wednesday, February 13

8:30 a.m. Sub-groups meetings
3:00 p.m. Tour of Delta's OCC

Thursday, February 14

8:30 a.m.-3:00 p.m. Sub-groups meetings

Friday, February 15

8:30 a.m. Closing Plenary
     Sub-groups reports
     Industry Coordination
     Tables in Appendix C of DO-340
     Result of SC 217 ISRA
     Action Item Review
     Future meeting plans and dates
     Other business
12:30 p.m. Adjourn (no lunch break)

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 19, 2012.
Richard F. Gonzalez,
Management Analyst, Business Operations Group, ANG-A12, Federal 
Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-01378 Filed 1-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
Sl()-l()()2()2-()2( )

Januar y24 , 201 0 Tsune-ak i Ik i 8-2-150 1 Akashi-cho , Chuo-ku , Tokyo 104-0044 Japa n Th e Honorabl e Raymon d H

. LaHoo d Secretar y Unite d State s Departmen t o f Transportatio n 1200 Ne wJerseyAvenue , S.E

. Washington , D.C

. 2059 0 RE : DOT-OST-2009-035 0 Dea rSecretar

yLaHood : I am writin g t o expres s mystron g suppor t fo rth e antitrus t immunit y(ATI ) applicatio n file d byUnite d Airlines

. Continenta l an d Al l Nippo n /Mtway s (ANA ) wit h th e U.S

. Departmen t o f Transportatio n (DOT)

. DO T approva l wil l enabl e thes e airline s t o delive rth e competKiv

e fligh t schedules , fare s an d service s consumer s demand

. You rleadershi p i n thi s matte rwil l ensur e that th e Unite d State s realize s th e benefits o f th e recen t Ope n Skie s aviatio n agreemen t betwee n th e governments o f th e Unite d State s an d Japan , whic h wil l no t g o into effec

t unles s an d unti l DO

T grants th e AT I request
. Ope n Skie s wit h Japa n i s a n enomnou s achievemen t an d wil l produc e significan t benefit s fo rconsumers , competitio n an d airlin e employees

. Approva l o f thi s importan t applicatio n wil l maximiz e th e benefits t o th e Unite d State s o f th e Ope n Skie s agreemen t wit h Japa n b

yprovidin g traveler

s mor e airlin e seats , destinations , routings , schedule s an d prices

. I n thi s challengin g economi cenvironment , airline s nee d t o pursu e al l opportunitie s t o allowthe m an d th e communitie s theyserve t o sta ycompetitive i n a n increasingl ygloba l marketplace

. Approva l o f thi s applicatio n woul d allowthes e airline s t o generat e significan t pric e an d service benefits fo rconsumers , hel p preserve an d enhanc e servic e t o communitie s throughou t th e Unite d State s an d Japan , an d compet e mor e efi^ctivel ywit h othe rinternationa l airline s an d alliances

. I than k yo u fo ryou rwor k

t o achieve th e U.S.-Japa n Ope n Skie s agreemen t an d loo k fonwar d t o you rapprova l of th e pendin g application

. Sincerely , 

# '^ ' O^ ^
#### People v Schwander,

No. 90706;

Court of Appeals No. 118936.
**Exhibit E-1**

Eidos PLC – Additional Listing  RNS Number: 3388X  Eidos PLC

17 June 2002

Eidos plc announces that application has been made to the London Stock Exchange and UK Listing Authority for the admission to the Official  List of a Block Listing of 6,483,637 ordinary shares of 2p each. These shares, which rank pari passu with the existing ordinary shares in issue,  will be allotted from time to time in accordance with the exercise of options under the following Schemes:

| Eidos plc SAYE Scheme                        | 463,245   |   |
|----------------------------------------------|-----------|--------|
| Discretionary Scheme Approved Options        | 765,983   |   |
| Discretionary Scheme Unapproved      Options | 5,254,409 |   |
#### Ammon S. Keeler and another v. Charles Ullrich.

*Fraudulent transfers': Judgment creditor: Execution: Title.*A judgment creditor has no authority to levy an execution upon property transferred by his debtor prior to the existence of his.claim against such debtor, ■where such transfer was not made in contemplation of any future indebtedness, and such claim was not incurred on any faith that the property in question belonged to the debtor, and where the creditor docs not show himself in any position to attack the rectitude of the transfer.

*Heard April 27.*

*Decided April 30.*

Error to Macomb Circuit.

*Edgar Weeks,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Hubbard & Crocker,*for defendant in error.

Pbb Cubiam:

Ullrich replevied certain animals and a hay rake from Keeler and Taft. Their defense .consisted of a justification of the taking, upon the claim that as against his creditors the property belonged to one John Cawker, and that it was taken by Taft as constable, on an execution upon a justice’s judgment in favor of Keeler and against Cawker. To make out the justification, they gave evidence of the judgment, which was rendered in December, 1873, and also submitted evidence tending to show that Cawker sold to one Smith in October, 1871, and that Smith sold to Ullrich in July, 1873. These sales, it was insisted by Keeler and Taft, were fraudulent. There was no evidence, however, to show that Keeler was a creditor of Cawker at the time of either of these transactions, or that they were had in contemplation of any future indebtedness of ' Cawker, or that Keeler became Oawker’s creditor upon any faith that the property hi question belonged to Cawker. In short, there was no proof to place Keeler in a position to question the rectitude of these *89bargains, and the circuit judge very properly so charged. A claim is made that the judgment set up by Keeler was bad, but it is not necessary to inquire about that.

The defense wholly failed upon the ground mentioned, and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 35.1

Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.

This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of
February 2, 2010 (the Agreement) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2010-1 (the Trust), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and
the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by General Motors Financial Company, Inc. (f/k/a AmeriCredit Corp.), AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the Servicer) and AFS SenSub Corp. in
connection therewith. The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.

The undersigned certifies that
I am the Executive Vice President, Accounting Corporate Controller of the Servicer. I further certify as follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013, and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the
fulfillment of any such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.



|    |  |                                 |  |  |  |                      
|--- |  | ------------------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Connie Coffey               |  |  |  | Dated: March 28, 2014
|    |  | Connie Coffey                   |  |  |  |                      
|    |  | Executive Vice President,       |  |  |  |                      
|    |  | Accounting Corporate Controller |  |  |  |
#### Jason Capuano, Respondent-Appellant, v Platzner International Group, Ltd., Appellant-Respondent.

[774 NYS2d 780]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered December 12, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the plaintiff cross-appeals from the same order.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff is not aggrieved by the order *(see*CPLR 5511); and it is further,

*621Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant was previously denied summary judgment in this case and this Court affirmed that determination (see *Capuano v Platzner Intl. Group,*260 AD2d 527 [1999]). It is well settled that successive motions for summary judgment should not be made based upon facts or arguments which could have been submitted on the original motion for summary judgment (see *Klein v Auerbach,*1 AD3d 317 [2003]). In any event, there are issues of fact which preclude the granting of summary judgment.

In the exercise of our discretion we deny the plaintiffs application to impose a sanction against the defendant (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1). Prudenti, P.J., Smith, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Kensey Nash Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael Celano, 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; 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:    September 10, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ MICHAEL CELANO      |  | 
|                            |  |     |  | Michael Celano          |  | 
|                            |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer |  |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Jerry Michael Payton, :

:

Plaintiff(s), :

: Case Number: 1:17cv714

vs. :

: Judge Susan J. Dlott

Commissiner of Social Security, :

:

Defendant(s). :

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

Judge Karen L. Litkovitz filed on August 17, 2018 (Doc. 16), to whom this case was referred

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b). Since there was a JOINT MOTION TO REMAND, the Court 

hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, the parties’ joint motion to remand (Doc. 15) is GRANTED. Judgment is

entered pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social

Security for further administrative proceedings pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. §405 (g).

Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the record (Doc. 11) is DENIED as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

___s/Susan J. Dlott____________

Judge Susan J. Dlott

United States District Court
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

ROXANNE BUCK, 

 Petitioner, : Case No. 3:17-cv-344 

 District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

- vs - Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz 

WARDEN, Dayton Correctional Institution, 

 Respondent. : 

RECOMMITTAL ORDER 

 

This case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Objections (ECF No. 4) to the Magistrate 

Judge’s Report and Recommendations (ECF No. 3). 

The District Judge has preliminarily considered the Objections and believes they will be 

more appropriately resolved after further analysis by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), this matter is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge with 

instructions to file a supplemental report analyzing the Objections and making recommendations 

based on that analysis. 

October 25, 2017. *s/Thomas M. Rose 

Thomas M. Rose 

United States District Judge
#### Barnard *v.*First Methodist Church of Mena.

5-900

288 S. W. 2d 595

Opinion delivered April 2, 1956.

*James D. Stoker, Bonn G. Allison*and *W. C. Benton,*for appellant.

*Nabors Shaw,*for appellee.

Lee Seamster, Chief Justice.

Mrs. E. Maria Barnard McKee died February 12, 1955. The appellee offered for probate as her holographic will the following instrument.

> “To the Methodist Church of Mena, Arkansas.

> “I, E. Maria McKee being of sound mind I give to this church for the purpose of educating youth to Christ *145■— *all*my possessions to be disposed or used as tbe Board of Stewards and tbe Minister sees fit.

> *‘ ‘*Signed—

> “Mrs. E. Maria Barnard McKee

> 1010 Janssen Ave.

> Mena, Arkansas

> “My band and seal

> Dec. 29th, 1947”

Tbe Polk Probate Court ordered tbe instrument admitted to probate as tbe last will and testament of Mrs. McKee. Tbis appeal is from tbat order.

Tbe appellants are tbe brothers, sisters and a niece of tbe deceased, ber next of kin. Tbe appellants contend tbat tbe instrument, so probated as tbe decedent’s holographic will, is not testamentary in character and tbe court erred in considering extrinsic evidence to supply tbe *animus testandi*which was not apparent in tbe writing.

Tbe will was found in Mrs. McKee’s strong box, in an envelope which also contained a will dated 1945. Tbe previous will gave all of ber property to ber husband. Tbe husband bad died several months before tbe will here in question was written.

Tbe phrase “being of sound mind” is one usually used in writing wills; she disposed of all of ber property in tbe instrument, which would include ber food and clothing. Tbis provision could not reasonably become effective until after ber death. Tbe purpose for which she wanted all of ber property used was for “educating youths to Christ.” She delegated to tbe appellee tbe power to carry out tbe provisions of ber will.

We bold tbe instrument to be testamentary in character and tbat the *animus testandi*is apparent from tbe writing. *Cartwright*v. *Cartwright,*158 Ark. 278, 250 S. W. 11.

Tbe appellants also contend tbat tbe proof was not sufficient to establish said will by three credible, disin*146terested witnesses because some of the witnesses were members of the appellee chnrch.

Mr. Bill Lauck Wood, a chnrch member witness, was an officer of the bank where the deceased transacted her business. Mr. William G. Spencer, a church member witness, was her lawyer — all such witnesses were mature and no gain would inure to any of them, individually, under the will. They were competent witnesses. See 57 Am. Jur. p. 243,- Sec. 320.

The statutory method of making the proof of a holographic will is found in Ark. Stats. 1947, Section 62-2117, Sub-Sec. B. The proof in this case was sufficient to establish the validity of the will. *Sanders*v. *Abernathy,*221 Ark. 407, 253 S. W. 2d 351.

The court’s action in probating the will is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.