alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.02

                 SCHEDULE II--VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS

                  Years ended December 31, 1997, 1998 and 1999

                                 (in thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            Additions
                                        ------------------
                             Balance at Charged to            Write-offs
    Allowance for Doubtful   Beginning  Costs and               Net of   Balance at
           Accounts           of Year    Expenses   Other     Recoveries End of Year
    ----------------------   ---------- ---------- -------    ---------- -----------
   <S>                       <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
   1997....................    $ --       $  --    $   --        $--       $   --
   1998....................    $ --       $  --    $   --        $--       $   --
   1999....................    $ --       $1,121   $ 1,103(1)    $597      $ 1,627
<CAPTION>
   Valuation Allowance for
     Deferred Tax Assets
   -----------------------
   <S>                       <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
   1997....................     $921      $    7   $   --        $--       $   928
   1998....................     $928      $    1   $   --        $--       $   929
   1999....................     $929      $1,756   $13,885(1)    $--       $16,570
</TABLE>
--------
(1) Balances acquired from the NSI Reorganization and acquisitions.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6476 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6476

  To adjust the boundary of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National 
                 Heritage Area, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 21, 2023

 Mr. Thompson of California (for himself and Mr. Garamendi) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To adjust the boundary of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National 
                 Heritage Area, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

    Section 6001(a)(4)(A) of the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, 
Management, and Recreation Act (Public Law 116-9) is amended by adding 
at the end the following: ``In addition, the Sacramento-San Joaquin 
Delta National Heritage Area shall include the area depicted as `Rio 
Vista/Expansion Area' on the map entitled `Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 
National Heritage Area Proposed Boundary Expansion' and dated February 
2021.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Curtis J. Parker, 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, Cotelligent, Inc.s 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 that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Cotelligent, Inc.



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  |                                                                      
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: November 14, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    Curtis J. Parker
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  | Curtis J. Parker Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
**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**The undersigned, Chief Financial Officer of W Holding Company, Inc. (the “Registrant”), herebycertifies that to the best of his knowledge, on the date hereof: (a) the Form 10-K of the Registrant for the Period Ended December 31, 2005, filedon the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and  (b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theRegistrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.      /s/ Ricardo Hernández  Ricardo Hernández, CPAChief Financial OfficerApril 24, 2006
Kenneth Lee KENO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3270

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 20, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed for failure of the Appellant to comply with this court's August 11, 2017, order to show cause.

VILLANTI, MORRIS, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
**Exhibit 24****POWER OF ATTORNEY**     Each of the undersigned officers and/or directors of Tween Brands, Inc., a Delawarecorporation (the “Company”), hereby appoints Michael W. Rayden and Kenneth T. Stevens as his or hertrue and lawful attorneys-in-fact, or either of them individually with power to act without theother, as his or her true and lawful attorney-in-fact, in his or her name and on his or her behalf,and in any and all capacities stated below, to sign and to cause to be filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February2, 2008, and any and all amendments thereto, hereby granting unto said attorneys, and to each ofthem, full power and authority to do and perform in the name and on behalf of the undersigned, inany and all such capacities, every act and thing whatsoever necessary to be done in and about thepremises as fully as each of the undersigned could or might do in person, hereby granting to eachsuch attorney full power of substitution and revocation, and hereby ratifying all that any suchattorney or his substitute may do by virtue hereof.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Power of Attorney in counterparts ifnecessary, effective as of March 21, 2008.   *Signature* *Title*   /s/ Michael W. Rayden Michael W. Rayden Chairman of the Board of Directors and
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 GREM USA (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof ("Report"), the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant 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 results of operations
          of the Company.

Dated: APRIL 3, 2007                /S/ EDWARD MIERS
       -------------                ----------------
                                    Edward Miers
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    Principal Accounting Officer
#### Eric Alan SANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-2234

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 27, 2017

Eric Alan Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Cheryl L. Behymer, Nicole P. Cantey, FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eric Alan Sanders appeals the district court’s order partially accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Sanders’ employment discrimination claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Sanders’ pending motions and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Sanders v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.,*No. 1:14-cv-03509-JMC, 2016 WL 1156648 (D.S.C. Mar. 24, 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*
Converted by EDGARwiz


Exhibit 4.9
















CONSENT OF PASCAL SIMARD







Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 29, 2012 (the “Annual Report”) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the “Company”), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.




I, Pascal Simard, participated in the preparation of a technical report entitled “Technical Report and Recommendations, 2011 Exploration Program, Payne Bay Property, Québec, Virginia Mines Inc. and Anglo American Exploration (Canada) Ltd.” completed in May 2012 (the “Report”) concerning mineralized material in the Baie Payne property for the Company. Portions of the report are summarized under headings “Item III – Description of the Business – 3.7.4 Geological Setting; 3.7.5 Exploration and Drilling; and 3.7.6 Mineralization” in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 29, 2012 (included as Exhibit 1 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference herein). 




I hereby consent to the inclusion of the foregoing written disclosure and to the references to such disclosure and to my name under the foregoing heading and to all other references to such disclosure and to my name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.







Very truly yours,










	
	/s/  Pascal Simard


	Name:  Pascal Simard, B.Sc., P.Geo.



















May 14, 2012
AAM-12-281-E 

April 3, 2012 

 Exemption No. 10496 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0319 

Ms. Connie S. Pyatt 

Vice President 

SKY Helicopters, Inc. 

2559 South Jupiter Road 

Garland, TX 75041 

Dear Ms. Pyatt: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated March 16, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of SKY Helicopters, Inc. (SKY Helicopters), for an exemption from part 120 of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow 

SKY Helicopters, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its 

safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to SKY Helicopters. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into 

one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 
2 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant SKY Helicopters, Inc., an exemption from 14 CFR 

part 120 to the extent necessary to allow SKY Helicopters, which is operating under separate 

parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, 

subject to the conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of SKY Helicopters are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all 

times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

 2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the 

SKY Helicopters part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
**Exhibit
      99**




**AGREEMENT
      TO FURNISH DEBT INSTRUMENTS**




Pursuant
      to Instruction 3(b)(4)(iii) to Item 601 of Regulation S-K, the Company has
      not
      included as an Exhibit any instrument with respect to long-term debt if the
      total amount of debt authorized by such instrument does not exceed 10% of the
      consolidated assets of the Company and its subsidiaries. The Company agrees,
      pursuant to this Instruction, to furnish a copy of any such instrument to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission upon request of the Commission.




Pennsylvania
                Commerce Bancorp, Inc./s/
                Mark A. ZodyMark
                A. Zody,Chief
                Financial Officer
#### Rufina Antonia SAMAYOA-GONZALEZ, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 15-60886 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 27, 2017

REVISED April 28, 2017

Rufina Antonia Samayoa-Gonzalez, Pro Se

Christina Petersen Greer, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Rufina Antonia Samayoa-Gonzalez, a Guatemalan citizen and national, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of *245Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal of the denial of her motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We review this decision “under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” *Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch,*831 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Samayoa-Gonzalez argues that the BIA and immigration judge failed to properly consider whether she was entitled to equitable tolling. She contends that she acted diligently to file the motion to reopen upon discovering that she had been ordered removed in absentia after she followed the advice of a notary not to attend her hearing.

The BIA dismissed Samayoa-Gonzalez’s appeal because it determined both that she had failed to show that she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that she had failed to make a prima facie showing that she was eligible for relief from removal. Samayoa-Gonzalez fails to brief any argument challenging the BIA’s separate, dispositive conclusion that she failed to make a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief from removal. *See INS v. Abudu,*485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (observing that BIA may deny motion to reopen if movant has not established prima facie case for underlying substantive relief sought). Samayoa-Gonzalez has thus forfeited any challenge to that determination. *See Bright v. Holder,*649 F.3d 397, 398-99 n.1 (5th Cir. 2011). Consequently, she cannot show that the BIA abused its discretion in denying her motion to reopen. Her petition for review is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 1, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10186 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE ALBERTO JOHNSON-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:04-CR-15-ALL

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Alberto Johnson-Ramirez appeals from the sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty-plea conviction for transportation of illegal aliens and aiding and abetting. Johnson-Ramirez argues that he should not have received an adjustment for obstruction of justice and he should have received an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. The Government moves for dismissal of this appeal because, as part of his plea agreement, Johnson-Ramirez waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence except on grounds that theNo. 06-10186 -2- sentence exceeded the statutory maximum punishment or that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Johnson-Ramirez’s arguments do not rest upon either of these exceptions to his waiver. Johnson-Ramirez did not respond to the Government’s motion and did not challenge the validity of his guilty plea or the appeal-waiver provision. There is nothing in the record on appeal to suggest that Johnson-Ramirez did not knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence. Accordingly, Johnson-Ramirez’s appeal is barred by the waiver contained in the plea agreement.
See United States v. Portillo , 18 F.3d 290, 292-93 (5th Cir. 1994). The Government’s motion to summarily affirm is granted. The Government’s motion to dismiss or alternatively for an extension of time is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO SUMMARILY AFFIRM GRANTED; MOTION TO
DISMISS OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME DENIED.
Richard Tremayne VAUGHN v. INDEPENDENT BANK

2160289

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### MAMEA MALALA, Fagasa, Plaintiff v. SALA-TUIGA, Fagasa, Defendant

No. 5-1922

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [“Matai” name: “Sala”]

October 11, 1922

SYDNEY D. HALL, *President;*LEOSO, *Associate Member;*and LEAANA, *Associate Member*

CONSENT JUDGMENT

This cause coming to be heard and it appearing to the Court that the Defendant, did on August 25th, 1922, file notice of his intentions to register himself under the name (“matai”) Sala.

And it further appearing to the Court that on the 5th day of September, 1922, the Plaintiff, Mamea-Malala, filed in the High Court of American Samoa an objection to the registration by the Defendant, Tuiga, of the “matai” name Sala, which said objection was the only objection filed during the thirty days succeeding the posting of said notice by the defendant, as required by Section 79 of the *Codification of the Regulations and Orders*for the Government of American Samoa.

And it further appearing to the Court that the Plaintiff and Defendant at a meeting of the members of said Sala family have reached an amicable settlement of the matter in controversy, and it is agreed by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Defendant shall register his name as Sala-Tuiga, in the Eecord of “Matai” Titles in the office *331of the Secretary of Native Affairs, and hold said title until such time of his decease, resignation, or subsequent misconduct that warrants his removal:

It is therefore ordered, considered and adjudged by the Court, by and with the consent of the parties, Plaintiff and Defendant, that the said Tuiga is entitled to register himself in the Record of “Matai” Titles in the office of the Secretary of Native Affairs as Sala-Tuiga.

It is further ordered that the costs of Court are covered by the original protest fee of $10.00, paid by the Plaintiff.

This 11th day of October, 1922.

Consented to by:

/s/ Mamea Malala

/s/ Sala Tuiga
454 A.2d 175

#### Kendralla v. Gapen, Appellants.

Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied May 4, 1983.

Argued May 19, 1982.

John Hook, Jr., for appellants; John A. Stets, for appellees.

Before HESTER, McEWEN and JOHNSON, JJ.

Order affirmed.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6519 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to ban the use of 

intentionally added perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances in cosmetics, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 30, 2023 

Mrs. DINGELL (for herself, Mr. FITZPATRICK, and Ms. KUSTER) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

ban the use of intentionally added perfluoroalkyl or 

polyfluoroalkyl substances in cosmetics, 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 ‘‘No PFAS in Cosmetics 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6519 IH

1 SEC. 2. BAN ON PERFLUOROALKYL OR POLYFLUOROALKYL 

2 SUBSTANCES. 

3 (a) ADULTERATION.—Section 601 of the Federal 

4 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 361) is amend5 ed by adding after paragraph (g) (as added by section 

6 3503(a)(2) of division FF of Public Law 117–328) the 

7 following: 

8 ‘‘(h)(1) If it contains an intentionally added 

9 perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance. 

10 ‘‘(2) In this paragraph: 

11 ‘‘(A) The term ‘perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl 

12 substance’ means a substance in a class of 

13 fluorinated organic chemicals— 

14 ‘‘(i) that is man-made; and 

15 ‘‘(ii) has at least 1 fully fluorinated carbon 

16 atom. 

17 ‘‘(B) The term ‘intentionally added 

18 perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance’ means a 

19 perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance that— 

20 ‘‘(i) has been intentionally added by a 

21 manufacturer or supplier to an ingredient, raw 

22 material, product, or packaging and has a func23 tional or technical effect on the product or 

24 packaging; or 

25 ‘‘(ii) is an intentional breakdown product 

26 of an added chemical.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6519 IH

1 (b) APPLICABILITY.—Section 601(h) of the Federal 

2 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as added by subsection 

3 (a), shall apply beginning on January 1, 2025. 

4 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 3506 of the 

5 Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (sub6 title E of title III of division FF of Public Law 117–328) 

7 is hereby repealed. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB