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





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Sitka Sciences, Inc. (the "Company") on
      Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen
      Pilatzke, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and





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





/s/
               Stephen Pilatzke
              
              Stephen
                Pilatzke
              Principal
                Financial OfficerMarch
                25, 2008
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier: 2013** 

**- NM** 
**- 03**  **1**

**- AD** 

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
### Government Lawyers’ 

### Pro Bono Activities in the District of Columbia

A tto rn ey s em ployed by the federal go v ern m en t are b arred by 18 U .S.C. §20 5 from p articipating in any case in w hich th e D istrict o f C olum bia is a party o r has a direct and substantial interest. C onclusion o f 1970 opinion that federal atto rn ey s m ay not represent even on a volu n tary basis indigent persons asserting claim s against the D istrict, affirm ed.

November 3, 1980

MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR TH E STAFF DIRECTOR,

FED ERA L LEGAL COUNCIL

This responds to your request on behalf of the Federal Legal Council for “an opinion as to whether [18 U.S.C. §205] necessarily bars all federal attorneys from practice in any case in which the District of Columbia is a party or has a direct and substantial interest.” At the outset we wish to point out that this Department’s position on the applicability of 18 U.S.C. §205 to matters in which the District of Columbia is a party or has an interest does not stem from the fact that District criminal cases are handled by lawyers of the United States Attorney’s Office. We originally took that position upon the enactment of § 205, and have consistently maintained it since then, because we concluded that § 205 requires it. We would maintain it even if the U.S. Attorney’s Office were to withdraw completely from prosecutive work
in the District. The specific legal issue raised by the inquiry of the Council is whether a case involving the District is a “particular matter in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §205(2). This Office had occasion to rule on the issue formally a decade ago. Then it was raised by the former Civil Service Commission in relation to a proposal by theDistrict of Columbia Chapter of the Federal Bar Association that District of Columbia and federal government attorneys be permitted to volunteer their representational services to indigent persons assertingclaims against the District. Assistant Attorney General Rehnquist concluded, in a March 26, 1970 opinion, that such representation is barred by § 205 because a District matter is one “in which the United States is

800a party or has a direct and substantial interest.” We find no basis for diverging from that opinion today. We have also considered the suggestion that certain similarities in function between the District of Columbia government and that of a state provide the justification for allowing presently barred pro bono activities of federal attorneys before the District of Columbia courts.The suggestion evidences the view that the Department has the discretion to permit such activities. In truth, the Department has no power of that kind. Only Congress can reduce the scope of 18 U.S.C. §205.

L e o n U lm a n Deputy Assistant Attorney General Office o f Legal Counsel

801
|                                                                                             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                               
|View History:                                                                                
|                                                                                             
|Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers in Kentucky (Including Vehicle Fuel)  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                             
|                                                                                             
|Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers in Kentucky (Including Vehicle Fuel)  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |         |         |         |         |         |         |         | 202,620 | 187,054 | 199,511
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 208,848 | 191,608 | 211,950 | 206,134 | 212,666 | 222,249 | 200,361 | 214,546 | 207,837 | 189,023
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 211,993 | 204,380 | 210,584 | 216,451 | 241,037 | 253,219 | 260,708 | 270,884 | 320,636 | 320,274
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 299,531 | 314,246 | 354,727 | 310,541 |         |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
EXHIBIT 31.1
                                                                    ------------



      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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Pawfect Foods, Inc. (the
"Company") for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Pietro Gattini, as Chief
Executive Officer and as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, respectively, 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.


March 28, 2008

/s/ Pietro Gattini
---------------------------
President, CEO, CFO




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Pawfect Foods, Inc. and will be
retained by Pawfect Foods, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1842

JAMES JACKSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; DARRELL V. MCGRAW,

JR., Attorney General of West Virginia; SUE

SURGI, Commissioner, West Virginia Department

of Human Services; DENNY P. PENTONY, Social

Service Coordinator; BOB G. FAIL, Protective

Service Worker; D. A. JENKINS, West Virginia

State Trooper; SO LAN BOMBITA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CA-96-70-3)

Submitted: December 11, 1997 Decided: December 23, 1997

Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Lucien Garlow Lewin, STEPTOE &

JOHNSON, Martinsburg, West Virginia; So Lan Bombita, Falling

Waters, West Virginia, for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Jackson v. West Virginia, No. CA-96-70-3 (N.D.W. Va. May 28, 1997).

We deny Appellant's motion to stay a state court order. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
May 16th, 2016

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Amendment to CMI petition for exemption request under Section 333 of the FAA 

Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. Exemption No. 

13166, Docket No. FAA-2015-3049

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Conservation Management Institute (CMI), a research center within the College of Natural 

Resources and Environment at Virginia Tech, requests an amendment to the existing Section 

333 exemption allowing CMI to operate a SenseFly eBee sUAS for commercial purposes. 

The exemption in question is Exemption No. 13166, Docket No. FAA-2015-3049. 

CMI would like to expand its equipment list to include other makes and models of UAS and 

requests that the exemption granted to CMI be amended to condition #1 of the exemption that 

limited CMI use of UAS to the SenseFly eBee. 

We request that our exemption include approval of all UAS contained within the current FAA

document Approved Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Make/Model Under Section 333. We 

believe that the number of Section 333’s granted with the UAS from this list demonstrates the 

safety of these out-of-the-box systems and will allow CMI greater capacity and flexibility with 

regards to our mission to increase the capacity of our partner’s ability to efficiently manage 

natural resources.

CMI will continue to operate any and all UAS in a professional manner and in a fashion that will 

not violate any of the other conditions of the exemption. Nor will CMI allow any UAS to operate 

in a manner that is not conducive with the safety and interest of the public.

You will find a copy of the most current list of approved UAS as well as CMI’s original Section 

333 Exception attached.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Daniel Cross 

Chief UAS Operator/GIS Technician

Conservation management Institute

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and state University

1900 Kraft Drive

Suite 250

Blacksburg, VA 24061

540-231-4668

falkus@vt.edu
|                                                                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                            
|View History:                                                                                             
|                                                                                                          
|District of Columbia Natural Gas Price Sold to Electric Power Consumers  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                          
|                                                                                                          
|District of Columbia Natural Gas Price Sold to Electric Power Consumers  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                          

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | --     | 4.96   | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
**Exhibit 35**

ITEM 1123 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE 

WITH RESPECT TO THE INDENTURE (“THE INDENTURE”) FOR THE

GENWORTH LIFE GLOBAL FUNDING TRUSTS 

I,Richard Tarnas, Vice President of The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. (the “Trustee”), state: 

(a) a review of the Trustee’s activitiesfor the period January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007 and of the Trustee’s performance under the lndenture has been made under my supervision, and 

(b) to the best of my knowledge, except as disclosed in the Trustee’s platform-level assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122 (d) of Regulation AB dated February 29,2008 and attached hereto as Schedule A, the Trustee has fulfilled, in all material respects, its obligations under the Indenture for the period described above. 

Date: March 7, 2008 

 

SCHEDULE A 

MATERIAL INSTANCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE 

**1122(d)(2)(i): *Payments on pool assets are deposited into the appropriatecustodial bank accounts and related bank clearing accounts no more than two business days of receipt, or such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements.*

With respect to collections received on assets relating to certain series of securities, such collections were not deposited into a segregated account for each specified series but rather were deposited into a generalaccount held by the Company as lndenture Trustee (hereinafter referred to as the “lndenture Trustee”) and remitted directly to the investors. All collections were properly allocated by the lndenture Trustee to the related series ofsecurities and timely remitted to the investors in such series. The segregated account for each specified series was in existence prior to the time deposits were to be made into such account but such account was not utilized in all instances by theIndenture Trustee as stated above. Procedures have been in place and are currently being reinforced so that collections are deposited into the segregated account for each specified series within the applicable time frames and then remitted to theinvestors in such series all in accordance with the related transaction documents.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

IN RE KNUT ELBERS, CHRISTIANE MEYER,
MARTINA VON FREYBURG, AND GREGOR MEYERS

____________________

2011-1286 (Serial No. 11/524,356)

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

J ULIE A. S COTT , Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc., of St. Joseph, Missouri, argued for appellant.

F ARHEENA Y. R ASHEED , Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were

R AYMOND T. C HEN , Solicitor, and R OBERT J. M CMANUS

, Associate Solicitor.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM ( R ADER

, Chief Judge, O’M ALLEY and R EYNA

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

January 17, 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 73 (Thursday, April 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 18941]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10155]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Experimental & Integrative Activities; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Experimental & Integrative 
Activities (1193).
    Date and Time: May 8, 1998 from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
    Place: Room 1150, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Steve Mahaney, PD/CISE Research Infrastructure, 
Experimental & Integrative Activities, Room 1160, National Science 
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 
306-1980.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation 
for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate CISE Research Infrastructure 
proposals as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4), and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: April 2, 1998.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-10155 Filed 4-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
256P16-2

#### State v. Jonathan James Newell

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for Appeal (COAP16-233)

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Mandamus*

3. Def’s *Pro Se*Second Petition for *Writ of Mandamus*

1. Dismissed

2. Denied

3. Denied
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 Gentor Resources, Inc., a Florida corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Lloyd J. Bardswich, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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; 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: March 5, 2010    /s/ Lloyd J. Bardswich   Name: Lloyd J. Bardswich Title:  Treasurer and Chief Financial 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.