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






| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (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 R.H. Donnelley Inc. as of the dates and
    for the periods expressed in the Report.

|                                                                                        |  |                                                                                    |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ David C. SwansonDavid
    C. Swanson
    Chief Executive Officer
    March 16, 2005 |  | /s/ Steven M. Blondy
Steven M. BlondySVP and Chief Financial OfficerMarch 16, 2005
# 2023 DLA Energy Hall of Fame inductees announced

/ Published Nov. 3, 2023
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
                2023 DLA Energy Hall of Fame inductees announced                            The Hall of Fame honors and preserves the performance of past employees for their exceptional service, dedication, and contributions in support of the DLA Energy mission. Graphic by Paul Crank.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Paul CrankVIRIN: 230908-D-YE683-0000

Defense Logistics Agency Energy Commander Navy Capt. Brian Anderson announced inductees into the 2023 DLA Energy Hall of Fame, Nov. 2.

“Induction into the DLA Energy Hall of Fame acknowledges the vital role employees play in the current and long-term success of DLA Energy,” he said. “The Hall of Fame honors and preserves the performance of past employees for their exceptional service, dedication, and contributions in support of the DLA Energy mission.”

DLA Energy 2023 inductees are:
      - Jean Cox , former comptroller for DLA Energy Finance serving DLA from 1985-2017. Cox was instrumental in the e-convergence and audit readiness efforts to modernize DLA Energy’s accounting systems and drive significant progress in the Defense Department goal of Auditable Financial Statements. She retired in 2019 serving in the Senior Executive Service as the DLA Deputy Chief Financial Officer.
      - James Young , former quality assurance representative serving DLA Energy from 2007-2017. As a DLA Energy technical expert for aerospace products and propellants in San Antonio, Texas, Young applied his 51 years of experience in his field from both active duty as a Quality Assurance Specialist with the U.S. Air Force and as a civilian in support of air force missile fuels and rocket fuels as the Aerospace Energy Quality Manager.

The induction ceremony will be held at the McNamara Headquarters Complex auditorium at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, Nov. 28. Information on previous inductees is available at the DLA Energy Hall of Fame webpage.
#### Luis Cortes, Appellant, v Skanska USA Civil Northeast, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[61 NYS3d 890]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered January 6, 2016, which, upon reargument, granted defendant Skanska USA Civil Northeast, Inc.’s motion to dismiss and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, and denied as academic plaintiff’s motion for partial sum*539mary judgment on his Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As it is undisputed that plaintiff’s fall off a stair tower occurred during the scope of his employment with Phoenix Constructors, a joint venture, and that defendant Skanska is a member of the joint venture, plaintiff’s exclusive remedy against Skanska is workers’ compensation *(see Burlew v American Mut. Ins. Co.,*63 NY2d 412, 416 [1984]; *Felder v Old Falls Sanitation Co.,*39 NY2d 855 [1976]).

Plaintiff’s reliance upon *Samuel v Fourth Ave. Assoc., LLC*(75 AD3d 594 [2d Dept 2010]) and *Mournet v Educational & Cultural Trust Fund of Elec. Indus.*(303 AD2d 474 [2d Dept 2003]) is misplaced, since these cases turned on whether the defendant was an alter ego of the employer so as to be entitled to invoke the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. To the extent plaintiff argues that the exclusivity provisions do not apply here because Skanska purportedly owed him a duty independent of its capacity as a member of the joint venture, the Court of Appeals has rejected this argument as “fundamentally unsound” *(see Billy v Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp.,*51 NY2d 152, 159 [1980]). “[A]n employer remains an employer in his relations with his employees as to all matters arising from and connected with their employment. He may not be treated as a dual legal personality, ‘a sort of Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde’ ” *(id.*at 160).

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Friedman, Webber, Oing and Moulton, JJ.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1778 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 255 ) IV-C- 1 Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/20089:51:03 AM

Sheet 255of 276P. 2

..t o ST<

f •Sres>

\ PflO*l t 0 UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y WASHINGTON
. D.C
. 2046 0 

### SE P 

### 1 7 1991

Honorabl e Ralp hRegul a Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D.C . 2051 5 Dea r Ralph : 

# . i\> 

# ri i y-

•I

U'h- H H'TH E ADMINISTRATO R 

### «, . V-M Thi s i s i n respons e t o you r lette r o f Jul y31 , 1991 , regarding th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agency' s (EPA's ) interpretatio n o f th e definitio n o f "repowering. " Sectio n 402(12 ) o f th e Clean Ai r Ac t Amendment s o f 199 0 define s repowering a s th e "replacemen t o f an existing coal-fire d boiler " wit hon e o f severa l specifie d clea n coa l technologies . Th e definitio n als o includes , a s qualifying technologies , othe r technologie s whic har e derivative s o f "on e o r mor e o f th e [specified ] technologies , an d an yothe r technologycapabl e o f controlling multipl e combustio n emission s simultaneousl ywit h improve d boile r o r generatio n efficienc yan d wit hsignificantl y greate r wast e reductio n relativ e t o th e performanc e o f technolog y i n widesprea d commercia l use. " A s yo u hav e correctl ypointe d out , thi s definition , a s written , coul d b e interprete d a s limiting technologie s whic hwoul d b e considere d repowering project s t o thos e tha t onl yinvolv e th e replacemen t o f th e boiler . A s yo u mayknow , a s par t o f th e rulemaking process , EP Ai s currentl ytakin g comment s o n it s proposa l t o amend regulation s implementing ne wsourc e requirement s governin g modification s a t electri c utilit ygenerating units . Th e propose d rul e incorporate s th e statutorydefinitio n o f repowerin g withou t change . You r commen t i s being give n carefu l consideration , an d EP Awil l b e addressing thi s issu e i n th e fina l rulemaking . I appreciat e thi s opportunit yt o b e o f servic e an d trus t tha t thi s informatio n wil l b e helpfu l t o you . Sincerel yyours , KJAAX. :.;:......;.:

v Willia mK . Reill y
No. 10-5807.

#### John P. Bunyard, Petitioner v. Mike Knowles, Warden.

562 U.S. 967, 131 S. Ct. 469,

178 L. Ed. 2d 298,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7940.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# C_2013304EN.01002601.xml

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/26

---

Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña and CTTI v Commission

(Case T-465/13)

2013/C 304/45

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña (Catalonia, Spain) and Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (Catalonia, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, N. Ruiz García, M. Muñoz de Juan and M. Reverter Baquer, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare admissible and well-founded the grounds of annulment relied on in support of the present action; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare admissible and well-founded the grounds of annulment relied on in support of the present action;

| — | annul the contested decision, in particular Article 1, in so far as it finds that there is a State aid incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in particular Article 1, in so far as it finds that there is a State aid incompatible with the internal market;

| — | consequently, annul the recovery orders provided for in Articles 3 and 4 of the decision; and |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul the recovery orders provided for in Articles 3 and 4 of the decision; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present case is the same as that at issue in Case T-462/13, Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi v Commission.

Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi

Commission

In support of the action, the applicants rely on the same pleas in law as those relied on in Case T-462/13.

---
# Pete Steen 

/ Published Feb. 1, 2021

Pete Steen is a Global Strategy and Economics Advisor at the US Department of Defense, Joint Staff Strategy, Plans and Policy Directorate, Director's Advisory Group. He provides the Joint Staff with analysis of the nexus of economy/energy/finance and US national security. He also provides methodological support to Joint Staff decisions through applying behavioral, econometric, and psychometric analytic techniques and insights in support of national security strategies, policies, and decisions.

Steen began support to the Joint Staff in 1998, entering government service in 2010. Previously, he was the lead architect in the Joint Staff's Common Approach to Theater Campaign Plan Assessments. He was also the lead architect for the Department of Defense effectiveness assessment for the Global War on Terror.

Steen is an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University, specializing in the nexus of economy and national security. He is a graduate of Bradley University, the University of South Carolina, and the University of Utah. website of the United States government.
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

I, Raymond N. Joeckel, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Eagle Exploration Company, (the
Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Dated: July 10, 2008



/s/ Raymond N. JoeckelName: Raymond N. JoeckelTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer
**Footnotes**

Manufactured Housing Only Manufactured (mobile) home approved with accessory kit.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION

FOR REINSTATEMENT OF ABRAHAM ALLAN GERTNER TO THE MARYLAND BAR • IN THE
• COURT OF APPEALS
• OF MARYLAND
• Misc. Docket AG • No. 21 • September Term, 2016 ORDER The Court having considered the Petition for Reinstatement of Abraham Allan Gertner and the response filed thereto by Bar Counsel in the above captioned case, it is this 27th day of September, 2016 ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the petition be, and it is hereby, GRANTED, and the Petitioner, Abraham Allan Gertner is hereby reinstated by this Court to the practice of law in Maryland, and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall replace the name of Abraham Allan Gertner on the register of the attorneys in this Court and certify that fact to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund and to the Clerks of all judicial tribunals in this State.
/s/ Mary Ellen Barbera Chief Judge
#### In the Matter of Madeline D., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[55 NYS3d 250]

*933Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Terrence J. McElrath, J.), dated December 7, 2015. The order adjudicated Madeline D. a juvenile delinquent and placed her in the custody of the New York City Administration for Children’s Services for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings up for review an order of fact-finding of that court dated October 2, 2015, which, after a hearing, found that Madeline D. committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree and false personation.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant in the custody of the New York City Administration for Children’s Services for a period of 12 months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant in the custody of the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (hereinafter ACS) for a period of 12 months has been rendered academic, as the period of placement has expired *(see Matter of Jayson P.,*144 AD3d 1161, 1161-1162 [2016]; *Matter of Kieron C.,*140 AD3d 1160, 1161 [2016]). However, because there may be collateral consequences resulting from the adjudication of delinquency, the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as adjudicated the appellant a juvenile delinquent, which brings up for review the order of fact-finding, has not been rendered academic *(see Matter of Jayson P.,*144 AD3d at 1162; *Matter of Kobe S.,*122 AD3d 750, 751 [2014]).

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence *(see Matter of Stanley F.,*76 AD3d 1067 [2010]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the trier of fact to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor *(see id.).*Upon reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the Family Court’s fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; *Matter of Stanley F.,*76 AD3d 1067 [2010]; *cf. People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Mastro, J.P., Sgroi, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.
No. 10M48.

#### James C. Winding, Petitioner v. Ronald W. King, Superintendent, South Mississippi Correctional Institution.

562 U.S. 1058, 131 S. Ct. 683,

178 L. Ed. 2d 473,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9119.

November 29, 2010.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
No. 10-337.

#### Fayus Enterprises, et al., Petitioners v. BNSF Railway Company, et al.

562 U.S. 1108, 131 S. Ct. 822,

178 L. Ed. 2d 556,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9776.

December 13, 2010.

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

Same case below, 390 U.S. App. D.C. 213, 602 F.3d 444.
No. 10-7398.

#### Rudi Rivas, Petitioner v. Suffolk County, New York, et al.

562 U.S. 1130, 131 S. Ct. 941,

178 L. Ed. 2d 741,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 42.

January 10, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed. Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam).
Exhibit 32


                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 Sunburst Acquisitions VII, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form  10-QSB  for the period ending  September 30, 2005
(the "Report"),  I, Jay Lutsky,  Principal  Executive  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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.



/s/ Jay Lutsky
-----------------------
Principal Executive Officer
November 8, 2005
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sagient Research
Systems, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 (the
"Report"), the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive
Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, 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 and belief:

          1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
          2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Company.


Dated: April 28, 2005                   By: /s/ BRIAN M. OVERSTREET
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name:  Brian M. Overstreet
                                            Title: Chief Executive Officer and
                                                   Principal Accounting Officer

                                       22
================================================================================
No. 10-365.

#### Highland Crusader Offshore Partners LP, et al., Petitioners v. Lifecare Holdings, Inc., et al.

562 U.S. 1005, 131 S. Ct. 531,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8571.

178 L. Ed. 2d 374,

November 1, 2010.

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

*375Same case below, 377 Fed. Appx. 422.
Exhibit 31.2(a)

Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Rebecca Roof, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Eastman Kodak Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: April 30, 2013 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Rebecca Roof       
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Rebecca Roof           
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Desmond Porter, Appellant.

[57 NYS3d 897]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gubbay, J.), imposed June 9, 2015, 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 Bovian,*148 AD3d 924 [2017]; *People v Gonzalez,*142 AD3d 717 [2016]; *People v Chambers,*142 AD3d 672 [2016]) 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., Chambers, Roman, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.