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

Richard P.  McStravick,  President and Chief Executive  Officer,  and Anthony J.
Fabiano,  Senior Vice  President  and Chief  Financial  Officer of Sound Federal
Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company"), each certify in his capacity as an officer of the
Company that he has reviewed  the  Quarterly  Report of the Company on Form 10-Q
for the  quarterly  period ended  September 30, 2005 and that to the best of his
knowledge:

      (1)   the report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Sections 13(a)
            and 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.

The purpose of this  statement  is solely to comply  with Title 18,  Chapter 63,
Section  1350 of the United  States  Code,  as  amended  by  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Sound  Federal  Bancorp,  Inc. and will be retained by Sound Federal
Bancorp,  Inc. and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.

November 8, 2005                       /s/ Richard P. McStravick
----------------                       -----------------------------------------
Date                                       President and Chief Executive Officer


November 8, 2005                       /s/ Anthony J. Fabiano
----------------                       -----------------------------------------
Date                                       Senior Vice President and
                                           Chief Financial Officer
# Painting, woodworking and decorating miniature military aircraft helps spread holiday cheer across DLA Aviation

/ Published Dec. 27, 2019
RICHMOND, VA, 
During this time of holiday cheer, many across the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation enterprise took time to give back to their communities or enjoy time with co-workers during office holiday parties.

DLA Aviation Public Affairs asked you to send us photos and the response was overwhelming. We received dozens of photos showing off creative outfits, office parties, festive office decorations and boxes and boxes of gifts to be donated to those in need in your local communities.

Over the next couple of weeks, we will be running stories highlighting these photos, so sit back, enjoy and Happy Holidays!!
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1466

BENJAMIN VIENT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GANNETT CO. INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01562-LMB-MSN)

Submitted: February 25, 2022 Decided: April 1, 2022

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin Vient, Appellant Pro Se. Laurin Howard Mills, SAMEK, WERTHER & 

MILLS, LLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Benjamin Vient appeals the district court’s April 22, 2021, order denying two 

motions that he filed on March 22, 2021, in his closed civil action. The district court denied 

Vient’s motions based on its prior order prohibiting Vient from filing anything other than

a notice of appeal in the district court. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues 

raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Vient’s informal brief does not 

challenge the district court’s rationale for denying his motions, he has forfeited appellate 

review of the district court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 

2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our 

review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s April 22, 2021, order.*

 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

* Even if Vient had not forfeited appellate review of the district court’s April 22, 

2021, order, we would affirm on the alternative ground that Vient’s two motions lacked 

merit. See United States v. Riley, 856 F.3d 326, 328 (4th Cir. 2017) (recognizing that “we 

may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000,  AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,497
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,497
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,497
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          18,542
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       8,050
<OTHER-SE>                                     (25,095)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,497
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               13,098
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13,107)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (13,107)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (13,107)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.00)


</TABLE>
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.

Robert W. Kneisley 

Associate General Counsel 

1901 L Street, N.W., Suite 640

Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 263-6284

(202) 263-6291 - Fax

Bob.kneisley@wnco.com

______________________________________________________________________________

July 24, 2012

VIA E-MAIL & FIRST CLASS MAIL

Rebecca B. MacPherson, Esq.

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations 

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

rebecca.macpherson@faa.gov

Re: Request for Amendment to Exemption No. 8112E

 

Dear Ms. MacPherson:

On July 9, 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) granted the request 

of AirTran Airways, a wholly owned subsidiary of Southwest Airlines, for renewal of 

Exemption No. 8112 from 14 CFR § 93.123. This exemption allocates three slot 

exemptions to AirTran to conduct scheduled operations at Ronald Reagan Washington 

National Airport (“DCA”). FAA renewed the authority as Exemption 8112E, for use by

AirTran and/or Southwest for a five-year term.

The FAA’s renewal authorized operations under the exemption in the 0700, 

0800, and 0900 hours, but specified that “the FAA may adjust the time period for each 

operation if necessary for air traffic control or other operational purposes.” Southwest 

hereby requests that the FAA amend Exemption 8112E to allow AirTran to continue 

operating the slot exemptions at their current times: 0800 (slot ID 1648), 1100 (slot ID 

1194) and 1600 (slot ID 1531). AirTran has been operating these slot exemptions with 

daily frequencies at these times for the past several years, with the knowledge and 

approval of the FAA. Accordingly, Southwest requests confirmation of the ability to 

continue to conduct operations at those times through the term of Exemption 8112E. 

We appreciate your assistance with this matter.

Sincerely,

___________________

Robert W. Kneisley

cc: Brian Meehan

 Rob Hawks, Attorney
IA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2218

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 11, 1994

Referred to the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs

AN ACT

To provide authorization of appropriations for the Federal

Emergency Food and Shelter Program for fiscal years

1995 and 1996.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

4 Section 322 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless

5 Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11352) is amended to read as

6 follows:
2

S 2218 RFH

1 ‘‘SEC. 322. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

2 ‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out

3 this title $187,560,000 for each of fiscal years 1995 and

4 1996.’’.

Passed the Senate August 10 (legislative day, August 8), 1994.

Attest: MARTHA S. POPE,

Secretary.
#### People v Flores (John)

1st Dept: 134 AD3d 425 (NY)

denied 3/21/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)
No. 10-6588.

#### Levar James Anderson, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 991, 131 S. Ct. 440,

178 L. Ed. 2d 341,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8222.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 384 Fed. Appx. 863.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jason Lamon Mayes, Appellant

No. 06-19-00026-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 6th District Court of Lamar 

County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 27450). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

Stevens, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Jason Lamon Mayes, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 27, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15221]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-248-005]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Reconciliation Report

June 3, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 29, 1998, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern), filed a Reconciliation Report which compares the Order 528 
balance as of March 1, 1997 with total collections as of February 28, 
1998.
    Northern states that in this filing, Northern is demonstrating that 
the collections resulted in a net underrecovery and thus, no refunds 
are warranted.
    Northern states that copies of the filing were served upon 
Northern's customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before June 10, 1998. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15221 Filed 6-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-168]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-153-000]


High Island Offshore System; Notice of Application for a Blanket 
Certificate

December 30, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 22, 1997, High Island Offshore System 
(HIOS), 500 Renaissance Center, Detroit, MI 48243, filed in Docket No. 
CP98-153-000 an application for a Blanket Certificate of Public 
Convenience and Necessity under Subpart F Part 157 of the Commission's 
Regulations requesting authority to engage in the activity described in 
Section 157.203 of the Commission's Regulations, all as more fully set 
forth in the request that is on file with the Commission and open to 
public inspection.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to said motion should on or before January 20, 1998, file 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene or a protest in accordance 
with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (18 CFR 384.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the 
Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protests filed with the Commission 
will be considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be 
taken but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party to a proceeding or to 
participate as a party in any hearing therein must file a motion to 
intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-168 Filed 1-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-1128 Directorate ID: 2012-SW-064-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model EC225 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 3 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: These actions are intended to detect a missing through-hole and prevent lift bearing 

failure and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $554,204

Labor per Helicopter

(.5 work-hour x $85/workhour for the inspection)

(10 work-hours x 

$85/work-hour for the 

replacement)

$43

$850

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $43 for the inspection

$555,054 for the replacement

Total US Fleet Cost $129 for the inspection

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Rao Edupuganti
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leroy Williamson, Appellant.

[48 NYS3d 599]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J.), rendered November 10, 2014, unanimously affirmed.

Application by defendant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant *561may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice.

Concur— Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**Certification of Principal Financial Officer Required by Rule 13a-14(a) or15d-14(a)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**

I,David W. Montgomery, certify that:

(1)          I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Qof Advanstar, Inc. (the “registrant”);

(2)          Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary 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 financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4)          The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         [Reserved]

(c)          Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(d)         Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting;

(5)          The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

(a)          Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)         Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date: May 15, 2006 | By:    |  /s/ David W.  Montgomery |
|-------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|
|                    |   | David W. Montgomery            |
|                    |   | Chief Financial Officer        |

 

----
#### Suresh Chander, Respondent, v Eagle Sanitation, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[57 NYS3d 893]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Raffaele, J.), dated August 23, 2016, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is denied as premature, with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery.

A party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery prior to the determination of a motion for summary judgment *(see*CPLR 3212 [f]; *Brea v Salvatore,*130 AD3d 956 [2015]; *Malester v Rampil,*118 AD3d 855, 856 [2014]). Here, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability approximately two months after the defendants filed their answer, and the defendants did not have an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery (see *Okula v City of New York,*147 AD3d 967, 968 [2017]; *Brea v Salvatore,*130 AD3d at 956-957; *Nicholson v Bader,*83 AD3d 802 [2011]; *Amico v Melville Volunteer Fire Co., Inc.,*39 AD3d 784, 785 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability as premature, with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery.

Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.
### Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Commercial Refriger... http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/...

1 of 1 1/12/2009 4:46 PM EERE Information Center Search Help More Search Options

Printable Version 

## Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Final Rule Analytical Spreadsheets The analytical spreadsheets below provide the final rule findings and interactive tools for the engineering analysis, life-cycle cost analysis, and national impact analysis. Instructions on how to use the life-cycle cost and national impact analysis spreadsheets can be found in the final rule Technical Support Document appendices.
Engineering Analysis ( Excel 2.8 MB ) Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) Analysis ( Excel 50 MB ) National Impact Analysis (NIA) ( Excel 17.6 MB )



### Contact Information Charles Llenza Project Manager (202) 586-2192

Printable Version

Building Technologies Program Home | EERE Home| U.S. Department of Energy Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | USA.gov Content Last Updated: 01/09/2009
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Russell Villanti, Appellant.

[56 NYS3d 468]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ferdinand, J.), imposed March 14, 2016, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid *(see People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257, 267 [2011]; *People v Brown,*122 AD3d 133 [2014]), and, thus, does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claim. However, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Sgroi, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.