alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Mewbourne Energy Partners 03-A, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the six months ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity as indicated below and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended, and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                      |  |  |  |        |  |                                  
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | ---------------------------------
|                      |  |  |  |        |  | /s/ J. Roe Buckley               
|                      |  |  |  | Name:  |  | J. Roe Buckley                   
|Date: August 14, 2007 |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer          
|                      |  |  |  |        |  | Mewbourne Development Corporation
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
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 Date: May 8, 2009
    /s/ JAMES HYATTPresident,Chief Executive Officer, and
DirectorDate: May 8, 2009
    /s/ WILLIAM KOZIELWilliam KozielChief Financial Officer
(chief accounting officer)
Treasurer and Secretary
<PAGE>
                                                                    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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Cosi, Inc. (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 29,
2003, of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Mark Stickney
-----------------------
Mark Stickney
Chief Financial Officer
November 6, 2003
##### 



For the Year EndedDecember 31,2005
    
    
    2004Going Concern BasisEarnings
Before Fixed Charges:Loss before income tax benefit
    
    
    (11,928
    )
    
    
    (6,438
    )Add:Interest on warehouse credit facility and other short-term borrowings
    
    
    10,167
    
    
    
    7,488Interest on securitization notes payable and other long-term borrowings
    
    
    12,450
    
    
    
    1,357Interest component of rental expense
    
    
    227
    
    
    
    236Earnings before fixed charges
    
    
    10,916
    
    
    
    2,643Fixed Charges:Interest on warehouse credit facility and other short-term borrowings
    
    
    10,167
    
    
    
    7,488Interest on securitization notes payable and other long-term borrowings
    
    
    12,450
    
    
    
    1,357Interest component of rental expense
    
    
    227
    
    
    
    236Total fixed charges
    
    
    22,844
    
    
    
    9,081Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    0.48
    
    
    
    0.29
**Exhibit 32.01**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

In connectionwith the Amended Annual Report of Bold Energy Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ending July 31,2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, EdenClark, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

(1)       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)        Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operationsof the Company.

 

 

 

 

 

*/s/ Eden Clark*

By: Eden Clark

Chief Executive Officer

 

Dated: November 16, 2012

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typedform within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Companyand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.05(b)
AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO
CUSTOMER AGREEMENT
      WHEREAS, MORGAN STANLEY CHARTER CAMPBELL L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership (the "Customer"), and MORGAN STANLEY
 DW INC., a Delaware corporation
("Morgan Stanley DW"), have agreed to amend the
 Customer Agreement, dated as of the 31st
day of August 2002, as amended by Amendment No. 1
to the Customer Agreement, dated July
31, 2003 (the "Customer Agreement"), by and between
 the Customer and Morgan Stanley DW,
to reduce the monthly brokerage fee payable
to Morgan Stanley DW and to amend the address of
the Customer and the address of Morgan Stanley DW.
      WHEREAS, all provisions contained in the
 Customer Agreement remain in full force and
effect and are modified only to the extent
 necessary to provide for the amendments set forth
below.
      NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby amend the Customer Agreement as
follows:
1.	The monthly brokerage fee percentage of 1/12 of 6.25% (a 6.25% annual rate)
referred to in the first paragraph of Section 5 of the Customer Agreement is
hereby reduced to 1/12 of 6.00% (a 6.00% annual rate).
2.	The address of the Customer referred to in Section 13 is hereby changed to:

Morgan Stanley Charter Campbell L.P.
c/o Demeter Management Corporation
330 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
New York, New York 10017
Attn:	Jeffrey A. Rothman
	President
3.	The address of Morgan Stanley DW referred to in Section 13 is hereby changed
to:
Morgan Stanley DW Inc.
330 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
New York, New York 10017
Attn:	Jeffrey A. Rothman
	Managing Director
4.	The foregoing amendments shall take effect as of the 1st day of July 2005.



      <page>
      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to the Customer Agreement has been
executed for and on behalf of the undersigned as of the 1st day of July 2005.

MORGAN STANLEY CHARTER CAMPBELL L.P.

By:	  Demeter Management Corporation,
	  General Partner

By:	/s/  Jeffrey A. Rothman
	Name:	Jeffrey A. Rothman
	Title:	President

MORGAN STANLEY DW INC.

By:	/s/  Jeffrey A. Rothman
	Name:	Jeffrey A. Rothman
	Title:	Managing Director
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0 1 52 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DAVID JON KINDT ,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including January 22, 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 16 2020

12/16/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0152
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE03523

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas September 15, 2021 No. 04-21-00111-CV Lisa FLORES , Appellant

v. Mario DE LA OSSA and Navy Federal Credit Union,

Appellees From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-CI-24502 Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R After we granted two extensions of time to file the brief, Appellant’s brief was due on September 7, 2021. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.6(a). However, to date, Appellant has not filed the brief or a motion for extension of time to file the brief. We ORDER Appellant to show cause in writing within TEN DAYS of the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), (c); Elizondo v. City of San Antonio , 975 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.). Appellant’s written response must include a reasonable explanation for Appellant’s failure to timely file the brief. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8(a). If Appellant fails to show cause as ordered, this appeal will be dismissed without further notice. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c); Elizondo , 975 S.W.2d at 63.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 15th day of September, 2021.___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 205 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 205

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         March 8, 2023.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are hereby, elected to 
the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Agriculture: Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
    Committee on Armed Services: Mrs. McClellan (to rank immediately after Mr. 
Davis of North Carolina).
    Committee on Foreign Affairs: Mr. Schneider.
    Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: Mrs. McClellan (to rank 
immediately after Ms. Lee of Pennsylvania).
    Resolved,  That the following named Member be, and is hereby, ranked as 
follows on the following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on the Budget: Mr. Panetta (to rank immediately after Mr. 
Doggett).
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### American Federal Group, Ltd., et al., Appellants, v Union Chelsea National Bank, Respondent.

[721 NYS2d 2]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered December 9, 1999, dismissing the complaint, and bringing up for review an order, entered on or about December 7, 1999, which, in an action against a bank arising out of its payment of a check bearing an allegedly unauthorized signature, granted defendant’s motion to confirm a Special Referee’s report finding that defendant was not properly served with process, to vacate the previously entered default judgment against it, and to dismiss the action, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the aforesaid order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The Special Referee’s finding that defendant was not served in accordance with CPLR 311 has ample support in the record, including, in particular, the testimony of the person to whom the process was allegedly delivered. In this regard, there is simply no persuasive countervailing evidence to support plaintiffs’ assertion that such person had the authority, or apparent authority, to accept service *(see, Todaro v Wales Chem. Co.,*173 AD2d 696). Moreover, since the action was time-barred as of its commencement, the revival remedy under CPLR former 306-b (b) is not applicable to this pre-1998 action *(see, Floyd v Salamon Bros.,*249 AD2d 139, 140, *lv denied*92 NY2d 816), and does not afford plaintiffs another chance at service *(see, Maldonado v Maryland Rail Commuter Serv. Admin.,*91 NY2d 467, 472). The. alleged fraud occurred in March 1988 when defendant paid the check, and the summons and complaint were filed more than six years later in August 1994. In April 1988, plaintiffs received defendant’s statement of account *434enclosing the allegedly fraudulent check, and thus, at that time, had the information necessary to discover the alleged fraud within the six-year limitations period. The action was therefore time-barred under CPLR 213 (8), and 203 (g). We would add that the action also appears to have been barred by UCC 4-406 (4), limiting the time to report an unauthorized signature to one year. Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - [NRC-2008-0472]

# AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

# ACTION:

Notice of availability; correction. 

# SUMMARY:

                        This document corrects a notice appearing in the                         **Federal Register**                         on February 23, 2009 (74 FR 8124), that announced the availability of Final Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) COL/ESP-ISG-004. This action is necessary to correct the Agencywide Documents Access Management System (ADAMS) accession number for the ISG.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ms. Nanette V. Gilles, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of the New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC,  20555-0001; telephone 301-415-1180 or e-mail at                         *Nanette.Gilles@nrc.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On page 8124, in the second column, Supplementary Information, sixth line, the ISG's COL/ESP-ISG-004 ADAMS accession number is corrected to read from “ML08290729” to “ML082970729”. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of March 2009.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

David B. Matthews, 

Director, Division of New Reactor Licensing,  Office of New Reactors.

[FR Doc. E9-6111 Filed 3-19-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

CORNWALL MOUNTAIN INVESTMENTS, L.P., AND RANGE RESOURCES

- APPALACHIA, LLC

v.

THOMAS E. PROCTOR HEIRS TRUST,

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PENNLYCO, LTD., VIRGINIA ENERGY CONSULTANTS, LLC, ATLANTIC HYDROCARBON, LLC,

CHIEF EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT, LLC, QUEST EASTERN RESOURCE, LLC, EXCO HOLDING (PA), INC., MARGARET O.F. PROCTOR

TRUST

PETITION OF: MARGARET O.F.

PROCTOR TRUST :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 270 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of October, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
IIB 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5504 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 20, 2006 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 6029 Broadmoor Street in Mission, Kansas, 

as the ‘‘Larry Winn, Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

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


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

HR 5504 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. LARRY WINN, JR. POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 6029 Broadmoor Street in Mis4 sion, Kansas, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Larry Winn, Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Larry Winn, Jr. Post 

10 Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 19, 2006. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
exv10w26






Exhibit 10.26




AMENDMENT NO. 2

TO THE NACCO INDUSTRIES, INC.

UNFUNDED BENEFIT PLAN

(As Amended and Restated Effective as of December 1, 2007)




          NACCO Industries, Inc. hereby adopts this Amendment No. 2 to the NACCO Industries, Inc.
Unfunded Benefit Plan (As Amended and Restated Effective as of December 1, 2007) (the “Plan”), to
be effective January 1, 2010. Words used herein with initial capital letters which are defined in
the Plan are used herein as so defined.



Section 1




     Section 2.10 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety, without renumbering the remaining
provisions of Article II.



Section 2




     Section 2.20 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:



     “Section 2.20 ROTCE shall mean the consolidated return on total capital employed of
the Company as determined by the Company for a particular Plan Year.”



Section 3




          Section 2.21 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety without renumbering the remaining
provisions of Article II.



Section 4




     Section 5.03(b) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:



               “(b) Earnings Applicable to Covered Employees. Except as otherwise described in the
Plan, for periods on and after January 1, 2010, at the end of each calendar month during a Plan
Year, all Sub-Accounts of the Covered Employees shall be credited with an amount determined by
multiplying such Participant’s average Sub-Account balance during such month by 5%.
Notwithstanding the foregoing:





	 	(i)	 	No earnings shall be credited for the month in which the Participant
receives the distribution of the principle amount of his Sub-Accounts.
	 
	 	(ii)	 	In the event that the ROTCE determined for such Plan Year exceeds 5%,
the Basic Excess 401(k) Sub-Account and Excess Matching Sub-Account shall
retroactively be credited with the excess (if any) of (i) the amount determined by
multiplying the Participant’s average Sub-Account balance during each month of
such Plan Year by the ROTCE determined for such Plan Year, compounded monthly over
(ii) 5%. In the event of a Participant’s Termination of Employment during a Plan
Year, the ROTCE calculation shall be made during the month in which the
Participant incurs a Termination of Employment and shall be based on the
year-to-date ROTCE for the month ending prior to the date the Participant incurred
a Termination of Employment, as calculated by the Company. For any subsequent
month following such Termination, such ROTCE calculation shall not apply.”




EXECUTED this 10th day of November, 2009.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	NACCO INDUSTRIES, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Charles A. Bittenbender
 	 
	 	 	Title: Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 




1
DEVANTE GLOVER

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 2912

Opinion filed November 3, 2014.

Petition for Belated Appeal

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Devante Glover, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for bela ted appeal is denied on the merits.

PADOVANO, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ.

, CONCUR.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-61168 Summary Calendar

REINA MARIBEL SERRANO-PORTILLO; REINA MARINA PALACIOSSERRANO Petitioners

v. PETER D. KEISLER, ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A98-912-040 BIA No. A98-912-041
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The petitioners, Reina Maribel Serrano-Portillo and her minor daughter, Reina Marino Palacios-Serrano, were ordered removed to El Salvador after failing to appear at their immigration hearing. They filed a motion to reopen, arguing that car trouble prevented their appearance. The immigration judge United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 2, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-61168

2 (IJ) denied the motion to reopen, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s order. The petitioners, appearing pro se, have filed a petition for review, arguing that the IJ erred by failing to grant a motion for change of venue, to reopen the proceedingswhen car trouble that was beyond their control prevented their attendance, and, in their reply brief, they argue that a change of circumstances i n El Salvador will cause their lives to be at risk if they are forced to return. As the petitioners fail to explain in a coherent fashion why they had “good
cause” for a change of venue, they have failed to demonstrate error in the IJ’s decision to deny their motion for change ofvenue. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.20(b); In
re Rahman, 20 I. & N. Dec . 480, 483-84 (BIA 1992). Additionally, the petitioners’ argument regarding changed country circumstances is raised before this court for the first time in their reply brief. This court does not consider arguments that are raised for the first time in a reply brief. See United States v. Brown, 305 F.3d 304, 307 n. 4 (5th Cir.2002). The statute in place when the removal proceedings began provided for in absentia hearings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(b)(5)(A) (2005); Williams-Igwonobev. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 453, 455-56and n.1 (5th Cir. 2006). Although the petitioners state that car trouble prevented their attendance, the petitioners cite no authority to support their arguments, nor do they provide a coherent argument discussing the IJ’s analysis. Additionally, the record does not indicate that the petitioners diligently attempted tocontact the immigration court while they had
car problems, nor does the record indicate that the petitioners diligently attempted to pursue relief after the removal order was issued. The petitioners have thereforefailed todemonstrate that their failure to attend the hearing was caused by exceptional circumstances. See De Morales v. INS , 116 F.3d 145, 147- 49 (5th Cir. 1997); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i) and (c)(7)(e)(1) (2005). The denial of the motion to reopen was not an abuse of discretion. See De Morales, 116 F.3d at 147. The petition for review is therefore DENIED.