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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                                Certification of
                             Chief Executive Officer
                               of EEX Corporation

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q
(the "Form 10-Q") for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 of EEX Corporation
("EEX").

I, Thomas M Hamilton, Chief Executive Officer of EEX, certify that to the best
of my knowledge:

     (i)  the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
          or 78o(d)); and

     (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of EEX.

Dated:  August 13, 2002


                                                /s/ Thomas M Hamilton
                                         -----------------------------------
                                                Thomas M Hamilton

<PAGE>

                                Certification of
                             Chief Financial Officer
                               of EEX Corporation

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q
(the "Form 10-Q") for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 of EEX Corporation
("EEX").

I, Richard S. Langdon, Chief Financial Officer of EEX, certify that to the best
of my knowledge:

     (i)  the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
          or 78o(d)); and

     (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of EEX.

Dated:  August 13, 2002


                                              /s/ Richard S. Langdon
                                        ----------------------------------
                                               Richard S. Langdon
**EXHIBIT ITEM 32.1**

 

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

 

The certification setforth below is being submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solelyfor the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of theUnited States Code.

 

November 20, 2007

 

Charles T. Chrietzberg, Jr., the Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Northern California Bancorp, Inc. certifies:

 

a.               that this quarterly report on Form10-QSB/A, Amendment 1 for the period ended June 30, 2007 fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

b.              that information contained in thisquarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A, Amendment 1 for the period ended June 30,2007 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Northern California Bancorp, Inc.

 

 
|   | /s/  Charles T. Chrietzberg, Jr. |   |
|--------|----------------------------------|--------|
|   | Charles  T. Chrietzberg, Jr.     |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer         |
|   | and  President                   |

 

----
Amendment #2
                                                    To
                          Master lease #46494 dated April 2, 1999 (the "Lease")
                                                 Between
                              Wells Fargo Equipment Finance, Inc. ("Lessor")
                                                   And
                                    PLM International, Inc. ("Lessee")

Lessor and Lessee hereby agree to amend the Lease as follows:

     1.  Paragraph  17(i) is amended by inserting the following to the beginning
thereof, "without Lessor's prior written consent which shall not be unreasonably
withheld, conditioned or delayed provided there is no material adverse change in
Lessee's credit worthiness as a result thereof,".

     2. "Paragraph  17(j) is amended by inserting the following to the beginning
thereof, "without Lessor's prior written consent which shall not be unreasonably
withheld,  conditioned  or delayed  provided  the credit  worthiness  of the new
entity is equal or better than Lessee's as of the date of this lease,".

     3.  Paragraph  17 is further  amended by adding  the  following  to the end
thereof:

          (k)  Lessee  shall  fail  to  have  closed  the  sale  its  subsidiary
     operation, American Finance Group, Inc., by March 31, 2000, however, Lessor
     retains  the right to grant  Lessee an  extension  to this date at Lessor's
     sole discretion, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.

          (l) Lessee's  ration of Earnings  Before  Interest and Taxes (EBIT) to
     Interest  Expense  shall be no less than 1.35 to 1.0.  Lessee's  Net Income
     shall be no less than $1.00 for any two consecutive quarters.

          (m) Lessee's  Tangible Net Worth Leverage defined as Total Liabilities
     to Tangible Net Worth shall be no greater than 3.0 to 1.0.

     EBIT,  Net Income and Tangible Net Worth shall be  calculated in accordance
     with GAAP.

     4. Except as modified herein,  the terms and conditions of the Lease remain
the same.

Dated: October 12, 1999

WELLS  FARGO EQUIPMENT FINANCE, INC.     PLM INTERNATIONAL, INC.


By:   Sheryl L. Parranto                    By:  /s/ Richard K Brock
Its:  Officer                               Its: Chief Financial Officer

 <PAGE>
IA

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 107

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the award of attorneys’ fees,

costs, and sanctions of $285,864.78 ordered by United States District

Judge Royce C. Lamberth on December 18, 1997, should not be paid

with taxpayer funds.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 3, 1998

Mr. HAYWORTH (for himself, Mr. ARMEY, Mr. ARCHER, Mr. THOMAS, Mr.

DELAY, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Mr. BEREUTER,

Mr. COMBEST, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. CRANE, Mr. GOSS, Mr.

ISTOOK, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. LIVINGSTON, Mr. RAMSTAD,

Mr. ROYCE, Mr. SALMON, Mr. SESSIONS, and Mr. STUMP) introduced the

following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the award of

attorneys’ fees, costs, and sanctions of $285,864.78 ordered by United States District Judge Royce C.

Lamberth on December 18, 1997, should not be paid

with taxpayer funds.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3

4 SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

5 The Congress finds that—
2

•HJ 107 IH

1 (1) the President’s Task Force on National

2 Health Care Reform, convened by President Clinton

3 in 1993, was charged with calling together officials

4 of the Federal Government and others to debate

5 critical health issues of concern to the American

6 Public;

7 (2) the Task Force convened behind closed

8 doors and inappropriately included individuals who

9 were not employees of the Federal Government;

10 (3) United States District Judge Royce C.

11 Lamberth ruled in Association of American Physi12 cians and Surgeons, Inc., et al. versus Hillary

13 Rodham Clinton, et al., that representatives of the

14 administration engaged in ‘‘dishonest’’ and ‘‘rep15 rehensible’’ conduct in characterizing the member16 ship of the Task Force;

17 (4) Judge Royce C. Lamberth on the basis of

18 such conduct ruled against the defendants and or19 dered them to pay $285,864.78 in attorneys’ fees,

20 costs, and sanctions for the plaintiffs; and

21 (5) American taxpayers should not be held re22 sponsible for the inappropriate conduct of Federal

23 Government officials and lawyers involved with the

24 Task Force.
3

•HJ 107 IH

1 SEC. 2. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

2 It is the sense of the Congress that the award of

3 $285,864.78 in attorneys’ fees, costs, and sanctions that

4 Judge Royce C. Lamberth ordered the defendants to pay

5 in Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc.,

6 et al. versus Hillary Rodham Clinton, et al., should not

7 be paid with taxpayer funds.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           51895
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 51895
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  508195
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              750
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           194
<OTHER-SE>                                      507251
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    507445
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    31235
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (1941)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (29294)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (432)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (28862)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (28862)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2022 / Presidential Documents 16367 

Memorandum of March 16, 2022 

Delegation of Authority Under Section 552(c)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, including section 621 of the Foreign 

Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State 

the authority under section 552(c)(2) of the FAA to direct the drawdown 

of up to $10 million in commodities and services from the inventory and 

resources of any agency of the United States Government to provide assistance to Ukraine and to make the determinations required under such section 

to direct such a drawdown. 

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal 

Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, March 16, 2022 

[FR Doc. 2022–06277 

Filed 3–22–22; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PREZ DOC 3BIDEN.EPS</GPH>
January 20, 2016

Mr. Thomas Haun

VP of Strategy and Globalization

PrecisionHawk

9001 Glenwood Avenue

Suite 100

Raleigh, NC 27617

- 8779

Dear Mr. Haun :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

§ 91.121 of Title 14, Cod e of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your January 7, 2016 , exemption request on behalf of PrecisionHawk into the

publ ic docket (No. FAA

- 20 16

- 036 8 ), but we are unable to process your request any further.

The information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed).

For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the follo wing:

 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 no t 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.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes .faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any furth er, 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.

If We Do No t 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/

Brandon Roberts

Manager, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Div ision

Enclosure3
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Antonio GONZALEZ-URENA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50237

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 22, 2018

Ryan Fraser, Federal Defenders of San Diego, San Diego, California, for Defendant-Appellant.

Mark R. Rehe, Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Diego, California, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Antonio Gonzalez-Urena appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C, § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C, § 1291, and we affirm. ■

Gonzalez-Urena argues that his prior conviction under California Penal Code § 215 is not a crime of violence and, therefore, the district court erred in applying a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2015). This claim is foreclosed. *See United States v. Velasquez-Bosque,*601 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that § 215 is categorically a “crime of violence” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2).

As Gonzalez-Urena acknowledges, his argument that *Descamps v. United States,*570 U.S. 254, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013), is clearly irreconcilable with *Velasquez-Bosque*or with the case on which it relies, *United States v. Becerril-Lopez,*541 F.3d 881, 893 (9th Cir. 2008), is also foreclosed. *See United States v. Chavez-Cuevas,*862 F.3d 729, 739-40 (9th Cir. 2017) (concluding that *Descamps*“did not impliedly abrogate *Becerril-Lopez”).*

We decline Gonzalez-Urena’s invitation to revisit the holdings of *Velasquez-Bosque*and *Becerril-Lopez*because his challenge to those holdings relies on “no change in the relevant statutes or regulations, nor in any governing authority.” *United States v. Ramos-Medina,*706 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir. 2013). “Absent such a change, only an en banc panel of our court may overrule or revise the binding precedent established by a published opinion.” *Id.*at 938-39.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir, R. 36-3.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Robert S. Herlin, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Evolution Petroleum Corporation, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Evolution Petroleum Corporation;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrantand have:

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in theRegistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theRegistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofRegistrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

 
|   | Date: November 14, 2007 | /s / ROBERT S. HERLIN |
|--------|-------------------------|-----------------------|
|   |                    |                  | Robert S. Herlin |
|   |                    |                  | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      701
<ALLOWANCES>                                       436
<INVENTORY>                                      1,291
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,651
<PP&E>                                           2,812
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,661
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,821
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,876
<BONDS>                                          1,144
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,199)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,821
<SALES>                                             81
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    81
<CGS>                                               20
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,257
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (391)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,586)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,586)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     143
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,444)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.50)


</TABLE>
**Docket Number FAA -**  **2014 -**  **0619**
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kelon A. STALLINGS, Appellant.

WD 78868

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Order filed: May 23, 2017

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 29, 2017

Richard A. Starnes, Jefferson City, for Respondent. •

S. Kate Webber, for Appellant.

Before Division One: Gary D. Witt, Presiding Judge, Alok Ahuja, Judge and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Kelon Stallings appeals his convictions for second-degree felony murder, armed criminal action, and attempted burglary in the first degree following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Jackson County. Each conviction was based on a theory of accomplice liability. On appeal, Stallings attacks the sufficiency of the evidence supporting each of his convictions and argues that the trial court erred in denying his *Batson*challenge. We find no error and affirm the judgment. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have instead provided a separate memorandum of law to the parties explaining our ruling. Rule 30.25(b).