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



CERTIFICATION



The undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:



|(1) | The accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 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 accompanying Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: November 9, 2005



/s/ Fred B. ParksFred B. ParksChairman and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Todd E. PaulsonTodd E. PaulsonVice President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 21



SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



|                                             |  |                                              
|-------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------
|Name                                         |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization
|ICI Holdings, LLC                            |  | Delaware                                     
|Insight Communications Company, L.P.         |  | Delaware                                     
|Insight Midwest, L.P.                        |  | Delaware                                     
|Insight Capital, Inc.                        |  | Delaware                                     
|Insight Midwest Holdings, LLC                |  | Delaware                                     
|Insight Communications Midwest, LLC          |  | Delaware                                     
|Insight Communications of Kentucky, L.P.     |  | Delaware                                     
|Insight Kentucky Partners I, L.P.            |  | Delaware                                     
|Insight Kentucky Partners II, L.P.           |  | Delaware                                     
|Insight Kentucky Capital, LLC                |  | Delaware                                     
|Coaxial Communications of Central Ohio, Inc. |  | Ohio                                         
|Insight Communications of Central Ohio, LLC  |  | Delaware                                     
|Insight Phone of Indiana, LLC                |  | Delaware                                     
|Insight Phone of Illinois, LLC               |  | Delaware                                     
|Insight Phone of Kentucky, LLC               |  | Delaware                                     
|Insight Phone of Ohio, LLC                   |  | Delaware                                     
|Interactive Cable Services, LLC              |  | Delaware                                     
|Insight Interactive, LLC                     |  | Delaware
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the Annual Report of SED International Holdings,
Inc (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Philip Flynt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, and for, the periods presented in this Report.

         Dated: October 3, 2003

                                        /s/ Philip Flynt
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Chief Financial Officer

         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
Section 906 of the Act and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate document.
June 15, 2015

Mr. Gary Young Universal Vacations Ft. Myers, Inc.

9720 Commerce Center Court Fort Myers, FL 33908

Dear Mr. Young:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 3, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 1883), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roger Lee LOCKAMY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6212

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 29, 2017

Decided: September 11, 2017

Roger Lee Lockamy, Appellant Pro Se. Graham Tod' Green, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Roger Lee Lockamy seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lockamy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Director Compensation Summary



 Exhibit 10.17 
  
 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION SUMMARY 
  

Effective July 1, 2008, the Board increased the annual retainer for the directors who are not employed by Cedar Management Limited, our management
company, from $15,000 to $20,000. The additional amount was paid in the common shares of the Company. 
  
 In addition to the annual retainer, the directors who are not employed by Cedar Management Limited are also paid $700 per half day for each board meeting
and $175 per hour for each committee meeting attended during the calendar year. All of our officer positions are filled by directors without any salary or other compensation. Directors are entitled to receive compensation and reimbursement for
expenses incurred in attending board or committee meetings or when otherwise acting on our behalf. The chairman of the board, as well as the chairman of each committee, receive an additional annual retainer of $5,000.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 12

- 00383

- CV HLI RAIL AND RIGGING, LLC , Appellant

v. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAIL WAY COMPANY , Texas Mexican Railroad Company, Lone Star Railroad Contractors, Inc., Mexrail, Inc., Feli pe Nevarez, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, AIG Mexico Securos Interamericana, S.A. de C.V. Chartis Mexico, Zass Recuperos S.A. de C.V., and City Underwriting Agency, Inc. Appellees From the 229th Judicial District Court, Duval County, Texas Trial Court No. DC

- 10

- 338 Honorable Ana Lisa Garza, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 21, 2012
APPELLANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; APPEAL DIS MISSED Appellant’s brief was due October 15, 2012. When appellant failed to file the brief, appellee Lone Star Railroad Contra ctors, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(b). We held appellee’s motio n for ten days to permit appellant to file a response. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 10.3(a). We held it an additional ten days pursuant to the mailbox rule. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.2(b). On the tenth day, a ppellant filed its

own motion to dismiss th e appeal , stat ing it no longer desired to pursue the appeal

. Accordingly,04

- 12

- 00383

- CV

- 2

- w e grant appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal, and deny appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1(a)(1). We order all costs assessed against appellant.
See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1(d)(absent agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against appellant).

PER CURIAM
Mathew CRAVEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D16-3454

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 12, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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 Annual Report of American Coal Corporation (the ACompany@) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Justeene Blankenship, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



Date: October 10, 2003                                        By: /s/ Justeene Blankenship

Justeene Blankenship

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.53



                        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is made this 11 day of
September, 2002, but effective as of January 1, 2002, between SED INTERNATIONAL,
Inc., a Georgia corporation (the "Subsidiary") and wholly owned subsidiary of
SED INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Georgia corporation (the "Company"), and
JEAN DIAMOND, an individual resident of the State of Georgia (the "Employee").

                                   WITNESSETH:

         WHEREAS, Employee and the Subsidiary have entered into an Employment
Agreement (as amended, the "Agreement") setting forth the terms and conditions
of Employee's employment with the Subsidiary; and

         WHEREAS, Employee and the Subsidiary agree that it is in the best
interest of both parties to make certain modifications to the terms and
conditions of Employee's employment with the Subsidiary.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the continued
employment of the Employee, and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto
agree as follows:

         1. The provisions of the Agreement which provide the Employee with an
automobile allowance are hereby modified so as to restrict the type of car
Employee may purchase using the allowance to Mercedes-Benz S-Class, and so as to
increase said allowance to enable the Employee to replace the car provided by
the employer once each year rather than once every three years.

         2. Except as otherwise provided for herein, all other provisions of the
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and Employee's employment
thereunder shall continue on the terms described therein throughout the term of
the Agreement, as amended hereby.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed and delivered this
Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the day and year first indicated above.

SED INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.,                By: /s/ Jean Diamond
a Georgia corporation                               Jean Diamond
By:  /s/ Mark Diamond                             Executive Vice President
Mark Diamond
President and COO


"SUBSIDIARY":

SED INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
a Georgia corporation
By: /s/ Mark Diamond
Name and Title: Mark Diamond, President & COO
## AIRCRAFT AND EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY

The applicant proposes that the exemption requested herein

apply to civil aircraft that have the characteristics and that

operate with the limitations listed herein. These limitations

provide for at least an equ ivalent or possibly higher level of

safety to operations under the current regulator structure

because the proposed operations represent a safety

enhancement to the already safe filming operations

conducted with conventional aircraft. These limitations and

condition to which James C Suss agrees to be bound when

conducting commercial operations under an FAA issued

exemption include:

1. The sUAS will weigh less than 5 lbs.

2. Flights will be operated manually within visual line of

sight (VLOS) of the Pilot and aircrew (Spotter /

Observer).

3. Maximum total flight time for each operational flight will

be 25 minutes. Flights will be terminated at 25% battery

power reserve should that occur prior to the 25 minute

limit.

4. Flights w ill be operated at an altitude of no more than

400 feet AGL, though most operations will be

conducted within 50 feet of the ground

5. Minimum two (2) man crew for each sUAS operation

will consist of the Pilot and Spotter / Observer. In most

cases the third aircrew member will serve as the Safety

Officer.

6. The sUAS pilot will view online training videos for specific type of

filming n eeds as well as stay current with rules, laws, safety

techniques, filming practices, pilot(s)s are required to take a t least 1

continuing education course offered thr ough a 3rd party every year.

The Spotter (Observer) will hold at least a third class

medical.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dejuan FRAZIER, a/k/a Woogie, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6697

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: October 24, 2017

*250Dejuan Frazier, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dejuan Frazier seeks to appeal the district court’s order .denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Frazier has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We. dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
RABLE 

I This certificate 

DMINISTRATION must be in the air

N craft when operated. 

RCRAFT SERIAL NO. 

W13DCH04040436 

AIRCRAFT 

This certificate is 

issued for 

registration purposes 

only and is not a 

certificate of title. 

The Federal Aviation 

Administration does 

not determine rights of ownership as 

between private 

persons. 

 0 

the register of the Federal 

with the Convention on 

49, United States Code, U.S. Department 

) of Transportation Federal Aviation 

ADMINISTRATOR Administration 

Ui 

z 

::; 

0 

0 ~ z 

0 

1-

::J 

!d. 

~=..::! J. ~=~;:±:~:;!!:::t::.::: :_~:_:25 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

• 

U.S. POSTAGE)) PITNEY BOWES 

~-,,=. 

---.-.,.~ 

~ ~ .. ;."':§ ZIP 73169 --$ 000 485 

~~~= 02 1~ • 

Ji~·"'·v 0001402926NOV 05 2015 Civil Aviation Registry 

P.O. Box 25504 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125-0504 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

AC Form 8050-3 (10/2010) Supersedes previous edition 

TO: UA5HOT AERIAL FILMWORK INC 

1 545 EUCLID AVE APT 6C 

M IAMI BEACH FL 33139-3562 

612PF 

i iji j, I i Ji i ;iII i iii'i l I'' J ;jjlll J jl I ill" i HI j ;iiI ,j/ Iii I iJi ,; j ji
#### Edward C. HUGLER, Acting Secretary of Labor United States Department of Labor (Wage and Hour Division), Plaintiff-Appellee, v. S&H RESTAURANT, INC., d/b/a Aroma Indian Cuisine; Mandal Enterprises L.C., d/b/a Aroma Indian Cuisine; Tejal Restaurant, Inc., d/b/a Aroma Indian Cuisine; Daljeet Singh Chhatwal, individually; Lamaree Inc., d/b/a Aroma Indian Restaurant of DC; Aroma Indian Restaurant of Dc, Inc., d/b/a Aroma Indian Restaurant of DC; Jyoti Bawa, individually, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 17-1091

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 22, 2017

Decided: October 25, 2017

Arinderjit (A.J.) Dhali, DHALI PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Nicholas C. Geale, Acting Solicitor of Labor, Jennifer S. Brand, Associate Solicitor, Paul L. Frieden, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Mary E. McDonald, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

S&H Restaurant, Incorporated, Man-dal Enterprises L.C., partner corporations, and the owners and operators, appeal the district court’s order denying their motion for a new trial. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a new trial, and “will not reverse such a decision save in the most exceptional circumstances.” *Gentry v. E. W. Partners Club Mgmt. Co.,*816 F.3d 228, 241 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A new trial will be granted if (1) the *259verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence, or (2) is based upon evidence which is false, or (3) will result in a miscarriage of justice, even though there may be substantial evidence which would prevent the direction of a verdict.” *Cline v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,*144 F.3d 294, 301 (4th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). In reviewing a grant or denial of a new trial, “the crucial inquiry ... is whether an error occurred in the conduct of the trial that was so grievous as to have rendered the trial unfair.” *Gentry,*816 F.3d at 241 (internal quotation marks omitted).

We have reviewed the record and the Appellants’ arguments and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. *Perez v. S & H Rest., Inc.,*No. 1:15-cv-01259-LO-JFA (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 21, 2016; entered Dec. 22,2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1095 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1095

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 101 South Willowbrook Avenue in Compton, California, as the ``PFC 
              James Anderson, Jr., Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. PFC JAMES ANDERSON, JR., POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 101 South Willowbrook Avenue in Compton, California, shall 
be known and designated as the ``PFC James Anderson, Jr., Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``PFC James 
Anderson, Jr., Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 12, 2022.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1095

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 101 South Willowbrook Avenue in Compton, California, as the ``PFC 
              James Anderson, Jr., Post Office Building''.
```