alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.4



Certification of 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-K of
Duquesne Light Company (the Company) for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Stevan R. Schott, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



WITNESS the due execution hereof this 15thday of March, 2004.



/s/ Stevan R. SchottStevan R. SchottSenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer




This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



A signed original
of this certification required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company, who will retain it and furnish a copy to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Quarterly Report of AmerInst Insurance Group, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stuart Grayston, President and chief executive officer of the Company, certify, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ STUART GRAYSTON                                               
|Stuart Grayston President and chief executive officer May 17, 2004
No. 10M38.

#### In re Grand Jury Proceedings.

562 U.S. 979, 131 S. Ct. 441,

178 L. Ed. 2d 319,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8245.

October 18, 2010.

Motion of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press for leave to intervene denied. Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record granted.
<PAGE> 1

Exhibit 99

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 Quarterly Report of Lexon Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (the "Report"), I,
Kenneth J. Eaken, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 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 result of operations of the Company.


/S/ Kenneth J. Eaken

Kenneth J. Eaken
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
November 13, 2002
# C_2016392EN.01002301.xml

| 24.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — K Chimica v ECHA

(Case T-675/13) (1)

1

((REACH - Fee for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises - Error in declaration relating to the size of the enterprise - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Decision imposing an administrative charge - Determination of an enterprise’s size - Power of the ECHA))

(2016/C 392/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: K Chimica Srl (Mirano, Italy) (represented by: R. Buizza and M. Rota, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented initially by M. Heikkilä, A. Iber, E. Bigi and E. Maurage and J.-P. Trnka, and subsequently by Heikkilä, Bigi, Maurage and Trnka, acting as Agents, and C. Garcia Molyneux, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of Decision SME(2013) 3665 of the ECHA of 15 October 2013, stating that the applicant failed to adduce the necessary evidence to receive a reduction of the fee for small enterprises and imposes an administrative charge on it, second, requesting that the applicant be granted small enterprise status and that the corresponding fee be applied to it, and third, under Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of the invoices issued by the ECHA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Decision SME(2013) 3665 of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 15 October 2013; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Decision SME(2013) 3665 of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 15 October 2013;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the ECHA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by K Chimica Srl. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the ECHA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by K Chimica Srl.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.

1

---
# C_2013079EN.01002202.xml

| 16.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/22

---

Action brought on 7 January 2013 — ADEAS v Commission

(Case T-7/13)

2013/C 79/40

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Association pour la Défense de l’Épargne et de l’Actionnariat des Salariés de France Télécom-Orange (Paris, France) (represented by: A.-L. Lefort des Ylouses and A.-S. Gay, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare admissible the ADEAS’s application; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare admissible the ADEAS’s application;

| — | rule that the decision is annulled; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the decision is annulled;

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the applicant is seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 9403 final of 20 December 2011, declaring compatible with the internal market, under certain conditions, the aid implemented by the French Republic in favour of France Télécom concerning the reform of the method of financing the pensions of public-service employees working for France Télécom (State aid No C 25/2008 (ex NN 23/2008)). (1)

1

In support of the action, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law which are essentially similar or identical to those put forward in Case T-2/13 CFE-CGC France Télécom-Orange v Commission.

CFE-CGC France Télécom-Orange

Commission

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 279, p. 1.

1

---
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 Constar International Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Walter S. Sobon, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
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.



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                        |  |                                                     
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 29, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    WALTER S. SOBON
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                        |  | Walter S. Sobon                                     
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                        |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 123 (Friday, June 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17025]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[NM-932-1310-01; OKNM 84747]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease; 
New Mexico

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Pub. L. 97-451, a petition for 
reinstatement of Oil and Gas Lease OKNM 84747, for lands in Roger Mills 
County, Oklahoma, was timely filed and was accompanied by all required 
rentals and royalties accruing from April 7, 1998, the date of 
termination. No valid lease has been issued affecting the lands. The 
lessee has agreed to new lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates 
of $10.00 per acre and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessee has 
paid the required $500.00 administrative fee and has reimbursed the 
Bureau of Land Management for the cost of this Federal Register notice.
    The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the 
lease as set out in Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 
1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is 
proposing to reinstate the lease effective April 7, 1998, subject to 
the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental 
and royalty rates cited above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Angela Trujillo, BLM, New Mexico State Office, (505) 438-7592.

    Dated: June 17, 1998.
Angela Trujillo,
Land Law Examiner, Fluids Adjudication Team.
[FR Doc. 98-17025 Filed 6-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FB-M
No. 09-1561.

#### Brandon Mayfield, et al., Petitioners v. United States.

562 U.S. 1002, 131 S. Ct. 503,

178 L. Ed. 2d 369,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8539.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 599 F.3d 964.
No. 10-278.

#### Educational Media Company at Virginia Tech, Incorporated, et al., Petitioners v. Susan R. Swecker, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, et al.

562 U.S. 1062, 131 S. Ct. 646,

178 L. Ed. 2d 479,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9256.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 602 F.3d 583.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIKA CALDERON,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-74696

Agency No. A075-706-612

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 5, 2010** 

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Erika Calderon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration

judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal

FILED

APR 13 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-74696

and relief under Convention Against Torture. Our jurisdiction is governed by 

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact, Hoxha v.

Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182, n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003), and de novo claims of due

process violations, Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir. 2001). We

deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. 

Because Calderon failed to challenge the agency’s denial of asylum,

withholding of removal, and CAT relief, these claims are waived. See

Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not raised

in the opening brief are deemed waived). 

We reject Calderon’s claim that the IJ violated her due process rights by not

considering all of the country condition evidence because she received a full and

fair hearing. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring legal

error and prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).

We lack jurisdiction to review Calderon’s contention that the IJ violated her

due process rights by not forwarding her asylum application to the State

Department because she failed to raise this issue before the agency. See Barron v.

Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.
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
Quarterly Report of AmerInst Insurance Group, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas R.
McMahon, Vice President and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|/S/ THOMAS R. MCMAHON                       
|Thomas R. McMahon                           
|Vice President (Principal Financial Officer)
|November 13, 2009
No. 10-7035.

#### Jonathan Lee Vernier, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1052, 131 S. Ct. 619,

178 L. Ed. 2d 449,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8920.

November 15, 2010.

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

Same case below, 381 Fed. Appx. 325.
#### Mark Perez, Respondent, v Beach Concerts, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., et al., Appellants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[63 NYS3d 344]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered July 1, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim as against defendant Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. (Live Nation), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim because Live Nation was the “owner” of the accident site in its role as licensee of Jones Beach Marine Theatre. The record demonstrates that as licensee, Live Nation had the sole authority to operate and maintain the premises, including the right to insist that workers on the site follow proper safety practices *(see Zaher v Shopwell, Inc.,*18 AD3d 339, 339-340 [1st Dept 2005]; *Bart v Universal Pictures,*277 AD2d 4, 5 [1st Dept 2000]; *Seferovic v Atlantic Real Estate Holdings, LLC,*127 AD3d 1058, 1060 [2d Dept 2015]). The court did not err in considering the merger agreement showing that Live Nation was the licensee of the premises for the first time in reply, because plaintiff submitted that document in response to an argument made in opposition to the motion *(see Rodriguez v Weinstein Enters., Inc.,*113 AD3d 483, 484 [1st Dept 2014]).

The court also properly found that plaintiff was engaged in the alteration of a structure at the time of the accident. When he fell, plaintiff was helping set up the second tier truss system of a sponsorship booth. This truss system constituted a “structure” because, viewed as a whole, it extended the height of the booth from 10 feet to 16 feet, was comprised of several interlocking parts that were connected in a specific way, and required the use of a forklift and several people to construct it *(see Lewis-Moors v Contel of N.Y.,*78 NY2d 942, 943 [1991]; *McCoy v Kirsch,*99 AD3d 13, 16-17 [2d Dept 2012]). Although this truss system was being set up to allow for the display of branding, it was not a “ ‘decorative modification’ because the work . . . entail[ed] far more than a mere change! ] [to] the outward appearance of” the booth and, instead, constituted an *603alteration to the preexisting structure *(Saint v Syracuse Supply Co.,*25 NY3d 117, 126 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

We have considered appellants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Oing and Singh, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7893

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

LUU VAN DINH, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:05-cr-00385-HEH-2; 3:07-cv-00210-HEH) 

Submitted: March 31, 2009 Decided: April 13, 2009 

Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Luu Van Dinh, Appellant Pro Se. Roderick Charles Young, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Luu Van Dinh seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dinh has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate 

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
# Aviation employee's theme chosen for 2016 Hispanic Heritage Month

/ Published Sept. 15, 2016
Richmond, Virginia, 
The National Council of Hispanic Employment Program Managers announced the 2016 Hispanic Heritage Month theme: “Embracing, Enriching, and Enabling America.”  This year’s theme was submitted by Defense Logistics Agency Aviation’s employee, Maurice Sanabria, chief, Command Programs Office, Command Support Directorate in Richmond, Virginia. 

This is the second time Sanabria’s theme has been selected. His theme was also selected in 2012. 

“Hispanics contribute in many different areas from politics, government, science, sports and the arts,” said Sanabria.

He said the inspiration came from his thoughts on being a Hispanic American himself and the contributions the Hispanic communities bring to the fabric and greatness of our nation.  

The theme is based on what he referred to as the three E’s. “Embracing, Enriching and Enabling are three words that capture the important aspects of the American experience,” said Sanabria. “Whether coming here for work or just a better life, there is an idea behind it as being the land of opportunity and a place where you can come and if you work hard, study hard, and do things the right way you can move forward and change your life.”

In describing ‘enabling,’ he said, it includes what Hispanics can bring to the table. “We bring knowledge, different experiences and work ethic,” he said. “We are also ‘enriching’ the American culture by bringing our traditions and customs and blending them with the American culture.” 

He said when people think about the Hispanic culture, they usually think of first generation Hispanics, but being from Puerto Rico, my family are natural citizens of the United States and have been since 1913. “I can go back four generations in my family and all are American-born citizens,” said Sanabria. “The same is true for many Hispanics in this country.”

In our current political environment and the talk concerning immigration it is important to remember the contributions and enrichments the Hispanic culture brings to American culture. Sanabria said he hopes those participating in the celebrations and activities during Hispanic Heritage Month will embrace the culture and that it will remind us all that this country was built by immigrants coming to America and they helped build our diverse culture.

“The events held during month help to bring awareness, education, and understanding as well as a chance to celebrate another culture,” said Sanabria.