alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32-12
**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**
I, David E. Meador, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofMichigan Consolidated Gas Company (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the bestof my knowledge and belief:
(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.   Dated: November 4, 2004 /s/ DAVID E. MEADOR   David E. Meador Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Michigan Consolidated Gas Company
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Michigan Consolidated Gas Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.
# Bettye Ackerman-Cobb CDC welcomes readers

/ Published March 8, 2019
Richmond, Va, 
“You’re never too old, too wacky, too wild, to pick up a book and read to a child,” Dr. Seuss.

Thirteen staffers from Defense Logistics Agency Aviation and DLA Installation Operations Richmond took advice from Seuss and read to 124 children enrolled at the Bettye Ackerman-Cobb Child Development Center at Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia on Dr. Seuss Day, March 1.

Casey Chapman, CDC director, who extended the invitation to DLA employees, said, “We are always looking for ways to involve parents and the community. The children love when adults come in to visit. Dr. Seuss Day is always a fun way to bring in people from our DSCR community and is our kick off to Read Across America Month in March.”

Chapman and staff went all out and dressed in bright colors, tutus, and of course, the iconic red and white stripped hat from “The Cat in the Hat.” 

Written by Seuss in 1957, “The Cat in the Hat,” is a response to a report published in Life magazine voicing the concern that reading primers from that time featured children that were abnormally courteous and well, boring.The infamous giant cat uses humor to lure kids into reading and mastering its 220 words.It was one of Seuss’ 60 books that were made available to DLA volunteer readers for Dr. Seuss Day.

The CDC staff even enjoyed a breakfast of green eggs and ham, in honor of the famous book by the same name.

Dr. Seuss, born Theodor Geisel, was an American children’s author and animator. He was born in Springfield, Massachusetts, in 1904 and passed away in 1991.Despite popular myths and urban legends, he has no ties to Virginia. Legend has it that the “who’s down in Whoville” referenced in “The Grinch Who Stole Christmas,” is about University of Virginia students who also refer to themselves as whos. There doesn’t appear to be any truth to this story, even though the legend lives large throughout UVA’s home in Charlottesville, Virginia.

March is Read Across America Month and Dr. Seuss’ birthday, which is actually March 2, is the traditional kick-off.The National Education Association designates the month as a time to promote the importance of reading and sets up events throughout the country to encourage parents and students to pick up a book and read it.

The Bettye Ackerman-Cobb Child Development Center is accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children.  It is a government owned and operated facility managed through Morale, Welfare & Recreation office, DLA Installation Operations Richmond and is available to DoD employees and active duty military.
Exhibit
32
 
 
 Section
1350 Certification of Periodic Report
 By
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
 Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 
 Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, each
of the undersigned officers of ALLETE, Inc. (ALLETE), does hereby certify
that:
  1.
              The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ALLETE for the quarterly period ended
      September 30, 2009, (Report) fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m);
      and
  2.
              The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      ALLETE.
  
 
 Date:  November
3,
2009                                                            Donald J.
Shippar
  Donald J. Shippar
 Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer
 
 
 
 
 Date:  November
3,
2009                                                            Mark A. Schober
  Mark A. Schober
 Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
 
 
 
 This
certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to liability pursuant to
that section. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that ALLETE specifically incorporates
it by reference.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to ALLETE and will be retained by ALLETE and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1783 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1783

 To amend the Mount Rushmore Commemorative Coin Act to allow proceeds 
   from the sale of coins to be used to renovate the Mount Rushmore 
                           National Memorial.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            November 24 (legislative day, November 23), 1993

   Mr. Daschle introduced the following bill; which was read twice, 
              considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Mount Rushmore Commemorative Coin Act to allow proceeds 
   from the sale of coins to be used to renovate the Mount Rushmore 
                           National Memorial.

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

SECTION 1. USE OF PROCEEDS FROM MOUNT RUSHMORE COMMEMORATIVE COINS.

    (a) Distribution of Surcharges.--Section 8 of the Mount Rushmore 
Commemorative Coin Act (104 Stat. 314; 31 U.S.C. 5112 note) is amended 
by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the following:
            ``(1) the first $18,750,000 shall be paid during fiscal 
        year 1994 by the Secretary to the Society to assist the 
        Society's efforts to improve, enlarge, and renovate the Mount 
        Rushmore National Memorial; and
            ``(2) the remainder shall be returned to the Federal 
        Treasury for purposes of reducing the national debt.''.
    (b) Retroactive Effect.--If, prior to the enactment of this Act, 
any amount of surcharges have been received by the Secretary of the 
Treasury and paid into the United States Treasury pursuant to section 
8(1) of the Mount Rushmore Commemorative Coin Act, as in effect prior 
to the enactment of this Act, that amount shall be paid out of the 
Treasury to the extent necessary to comply with section 8(1) of the 
Mount Rushmore Commemorative Coin Act, as in effect after the enactment 
of this Act. Amounts paid pursuant to the preceding sentence shall be 
out of funds not otherwise appropriated.

                                 <all>
```
No. 12-8044.

#### Ball *v.*Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          92,500
<SECURITIES>                                    49,100
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,600
<INVENTORY>                                      2,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               167,400
<PP&E>                                         456,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                  89,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 548,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,800
<BONDS>                                        315,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                      87,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   548,300
<SALES>                                        232,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               232,600
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  183,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,800
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,500
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,200
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.96
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Beaker, Appellant.

[53 NYS3d 543]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven L. Barrett, J.), entered February 13, 2014, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly assessed 15 points under the risk factor for drug or alcohol abuse, based on the presentence report regarding an earlier conviction and information in the case summary (see *e.g. People v Johnson,*77 AD3d 548 [1st Dept 2010], *lv denied*16 NY3d 705 [2011]). In any event, regardless of whether defendant’s correct point score is 130 or 115 points, he remains a level three offender, and we find no basis for a downward departure (see *People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d 841 [2014]). The fact that defendant has been deported is not an appropriate basis for such a departure (see *e.g. People v Zepeda,*124 AD3d 417 [1st Dept 2015], *lv denied*25 NY3d 902 [2015]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: 7/30/15 

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602 

FROM: Jefferson Cole, EPA 

SUBJECT: 6/3/15, Meeting with the Rubber Manufacturers Association Regarding Proposed 

Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants 

SUMMARY 

A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on 6/3/15 to discuss the market 

for tire-derived fuels and its potential use in the Clean Power Plan, proposed on June 2, 2014. 

ATTENDEES 

RMA Attendees: 

Sarah Amick 

Jesse Levine 

EPA Attendees: 

Paul Gunning 

Bill Irving 

Allen Fawcett 

Suzanne Kocchi 

Sara Ohrel 

Jefferson Cole 

Please see attached briefing document from RMA.
# Subsistence supports USS Indianapolis ahead of commissioning ceremony

/ Published Oct. 28, 2019
PHILADELPHIA, 
When the USS Indianapolis commissioned Oct. 26 in Indiana, it was a first for the United States Navy and posed a unique challenge for the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Subsistence supply chain.

Traditionally, Navy ships are commissioned out of Mayport, Florida, where prime vendor support is established through the Subsistence contracts. 

In the absence of prime vendor support in the immediate area, additional coordination was needed to accommodate the Navy’s requirements. 

Stacy Perry, Subsistence tailored vendor logistics specialist, coordinated with vendors and DLA Distribution to meet the challenge.

Perry led the coordination efforts to ensure food orders were placed and deliveries made ahead of the USS Indianapolis commissioning ceremony. 

“The [Littoral Combat Ships] are being built in Marinette, Wisconsin, so their prime vendor support is based out of [the Wisconsin] area, but due to the distance to Indiana for the ceremony, additional coordinating was made with DLA Distribution to pick up the order from Wisconsin and transport it to Burns Harbor, Indiana to get delivered,” Perry said. 

According to Perry, the mission required additional DLA Distribution support, and for her to coordinate with another TVLS in a separate region as the ship makes additional stops in areas without prime vendor support before arriving in Mayport later this year. 

The USS Indianapolis has already surpassed its predecessors in making prime vendor order history long before setting sail.

“Out of all the LCS ships out of Wisconsin to place an order, the USS Indianapolis placed the largest order which was over $44K before ever setting sail,” Perry said.

Peter Oiesen, supply systems analyst, Fleet Logistics Center Jacksonville, said DLA Troop Support provides such an enormous amount of support to make all the ships in the fleet ready and prepared for a successful mission.

“From ensuring that we use updated catalogs from their prime vendor supported ports to identifying and assisting in the vendor that provides food support in non-prime vendor supported ports,” he said. “In essence, without DLA, there would not be a [point of contact] for a particular region your ship and/or customer is located in to assist in the food ordering process which ultimately has a direct impact in providing that ship/customer with food to sustain [sailors] in port and at sea.”
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         165,115                  40,813
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  216,311                 291,254
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               385,161                 332,067
<PP&E>                                       8,658,493               7,826,279
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,240,519               3,049,147
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,803,135               5,109,199
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          356,710                 208,006
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       811,614                 711,614
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,136,031               2,211,398
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,803,135               5,179,199
<SALES>                                        454,703               1,453,124
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               456,815               1,465,907
<CGS>                                          127,901                 316,765
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  127,901                 346,765
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               295,309                 590,853
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,565                  12,787
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 33,605                 515,502
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,972                 137,635
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,633                 377,867
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,633                 377,867
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .016                    .265
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward Bond, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 607]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), rendered September 6, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years, and judgment, same court (Charles Tejada, J.), rendered September 30, 1999, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years probation, unanimously affirmed.

“An indictment charging a defendant as a principal is ndt unlawfully amended by the admission of proof and instruction to the jury that a defendant is additionally charged with acting-in-concert to commit the same crime, nor does it impermissibly broaden a defendant’s basis of liability” *(People v Rivera,*84 NY2d 766, 769 [1995]; *see also People v Guidice,*83 NY2d 630, 637 [1994]). Accordingly, the court properly charged the jury on accessorial conduct even though the indictment contained no such reference. Moreover, defendant was on notice that the prosecution would introduce evidence that he had an accomplice.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion based on the prosecutor’s isolated summation remark urging the jury to be fair to the children who attend the school near the scene of the drug transaction. The court’s instructions were sufficient to prevent any prejudice *(see People v Santiago,*52 NY2d 865 [1981]).

The record establishes that defendant received effective assistance of counsel *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *see also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]). Counsel pursued a plausible strategy designed to attack the credibility of the police witnesses.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we *324decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Williams and Friedman, JJ.
#### Peppelman v. David Cutler Group *54*

03/08/2016

890 MAL (2015)

54

. Justice EAKIN did not participate in die decision of this matter.

Denied

No. 2146 EDA 2015
#### Reliable Abstract Co., LLC, Respondent, v 45 John Lofts, LLC, et al., Defendants, and Chaim Miller, Also Known as Harry Miller, Appellant.

[58 NYS3d 365]—

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry R. Os-trager, J.), entered June 3, 2016 and June 10, 2016, which denied defendant Chaim Miller’s motion to vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015 or 317 an order granting plaintiff a default judgment on liability against him and to dismiss the complaint as against him for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant failed to establish a lack of personal jurisdiction. He did not flatly deny that any person matching the description in the process server’s affidavit of service was in his apartment on the day in question, and therefore he failed to overcome the presumption of proper service created by the affidavit *(see NYCTL 1998-1 Trust & Bank of N.Y. v Rabinowitz,*7 AD3d 459 [1st Dept 2004]). The absence of the precise apartment number in the address was not material, since the address as it appeared in the affidavit was one that defendant routinely used as his address in agreements and other docu*430ments, and it was sufficient to be relied on for proper delivery of a document mailed to it *(see e.g. Commercial Bank, N.A. v Logan,*2008 NY Slip Op 33343 [U], *4 [Sup Ct, NY County 2008]).

Defendant failed to establish that his default should be vacated pursuant to CPLR 5015, because he demonstrated no excuse for failing to appear *(see Matter of Lukes Jacob R. [Cynthia R.],*148 AD3d 420 [1st Dept 2017]). There is no record support for his argument that he believed this action to be part of “global settlement” talks with various parties. Indeed, the argument is belied by the fact that, during these purported talks, plaintiff continued with the action against him, and he had repeated notice of the proceedings.

Nor did defendant establish that his default should be vacated pursuant to CPLR 317. He failed to rebut plaintiff’s showing that he had actual knowledge of this action *(see Lopez v 592-600 Union Ave. Corp.,*292 AD2d 262, 263 [1st Dept 2002]). Plaintiff submitted proof of some half-dozen mailings of papers in the action to defendant at his proper address. Defendant did not deny that he received those mailings. He merely asserted conclusorily that he was not properly served.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.