alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99(a)

Energy Future Intermediate Holding Company LLC Consolidated

Adjusted
EBITDA Reconciliation



|                                                                    |  |                         |       |   |      |   |       |  
|------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | ----- | - | ---- | - | ----- | -
|                                                                    |  | Year Ended December 31, |      
|                                                                    |  | 2010                    |       |   | 2009 |  
|                                                                    |  | (millions of dollars)   |      
|                                                                    |  |                        
|Net income                                                          |  | $                       | 213   |   |      | $ | 74    |  
|Income tax benefit                                                  |  |                         | (42   | ) |      |   | (93   | )
|Interest expense and related charges                                |  |                         | 315   |   |      |   | 279   |  
|Depreciation and amortization                                       |  |                         |      |   |      |   |      |  
|                                                                    |  |                         |       |   |      |   |       |  
|EBITDA                                                              |  | $                       | 486   |   |      | $ | 260   |  
|                                                                    |  |                         |       |   |      |   |       |  
|                                                                    |  |                        
|Oncor Holdings distributions                                        |  |                         | 169   |   |      |   | 216   |  
|Interest income                                                     |  |                         | (209  | ) |      |   | (4    | )
|Equity in earnings of unconsolidated subsidiary (net of tax)        |  |                         | (277  | ) |      |   | (256  | )
|Other                                                               |  |                         |      |   |      |   | (1    | )
|                                                                    |  |                         |       |   |      |   |       |  
|Adjusted EBITDA per Incurrence Covenant                             |  | $                       | 169   |   |      | $ | 215   |  
|Add Oncor Adjusted EBITDA (reduced by Oncor Holdings distributions) |  | $                       | 1,354 |   |      | $ | 1,123 |  
|                                                                    |  |                         |       |   |      |   |       |  
|Adjusted EBITDA per Restricted Payments Covenants                   |  | $                       | 1,523 |   |      | $ | 1,338 |  
|                                                                    |  |                         |       |   |      |   |       |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00548-CV

Texas Department of Public Safety, Appellant

v.

USAA Casualty Insurance Company, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF HAYS COUNTY

NO. 20-1290-C, ROBERT UPDEGROVE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Texas Department of Public Safety has filed an agreed motion 

to dismiss this appeal. We grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: September 15, 2022
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

*Name of Committee:*                         Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel. CB IRG Member SEP.                     

*Date:*                         March 24, 2009.                     

*Time:*                         2 p.m. to 4 p.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Call).                     

*Contact Person:*                         Jonathan Arias, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5170, MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892. 301-435-2406.                         *ariasj@csr.nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. 

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 13, 2009. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. E9-6028 Filed 3-18-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Gary Artmont, the Chief Executive Officer of Nordic Nickel Ltd., and John W. Jardine, the Chief Financial Officer of Nordic Nickel Ltd., each 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 his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Nordic Nickel Ltd., for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Nordic Nickel Ltd.

Date:     November 13, 2007

|"Gary Artmont"                                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Gary Artmont 
President, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Executive Officer and a director  
|"John W. Jardine"                                                                             
|John W. Jardine
Secretary, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Nordic Nickel Ltd. and will be retained by Nordic Nickel Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

__________
#### W. P. Baker, *Sheriff v.*County Court of Tyler County *et al.*

(No. 7355)

Submitted February 28, 1933.

Decided March 7, 1933.

*O. J. Sill*and *I. M. Underwood,*and *W. J. Brennan,*for plaintiff in error.

*Willis & Ball,*and *Henry P. Snyder,*for defendant in error.

Maxwell, President :

This is a writ of error to an order of the circuit court of Tyler County awarding a writ of mandamus at the instance of the sheriff of said county to require the county court to issue, county orders for claims for services rendered by certain individuals in September, 1931, in the preparation of tax tickets in the sheriff’s office. The aggregate of these claims is $200.-00, and represents the services of five people for ten days at $4.00 each per day.

December 1,1930, in pursuance of section 40 of chapter 137, Code 1923, the sheriff filed with the county court a detailed statement of the probable cost of maintaining his office for the year 1931. This estimate or budget showed a total of $3,-870.00, and included an item for “assistants making tax *431tickets 80 days at $5.00 per day, $400.00.” This estimate was approved by the court. The claims herein involved were not only within the total of $3,870.00 approved by the court, but they represent only one-half of the $400.00 which the court approved as a proper item of the budget. The record indicates entire good faith on the part of the sheriff. lie had a right to act within the limits of the budget which had been prescribed for him by the court. In this situation, after the work had been performed by special assistants employed by the sheriff, the county court cannot be heard to say, as it attempts to do, that the work could have been personally performed by the sheriff and his two regular deputies. Nor are we favorably impressed by the court’s further proposition that compensation on the basis of $4.00 a day for these special assistants is exhorbitant, inasmuch as the items for $400.00 which the court had approved in December for the same work was based on a contemplated per diem of $5.00.

We perceive no error in the action of the trial court in awarding mandamus.

*Affirmed.*
----

----

| 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. |

|   | Conforce      International, Inc. |                                |
|--------|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|   |                              |                                |   |
|   | By:                               | /s/ Mario      Verrilli        |   |
|   |                              | Mario      Verrillli                |   |
|   |                              | Acting      Chief Financial Officer |   |
EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION  I, Kyle Beddome, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Dafoe Corp.;  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;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.   /s/ Kyle BeddomeKyle BeddomeChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)December 29, 2010   -1-
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER





Pursuant to


18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


As Adopted pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Zeynep Hakimoglu, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of ClearOne Communications, Inc. on Form 10-K/A-2 for the year ended June 30, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A-2 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ClearOne Communications, Inc.











Date:  October 5, 2009
By:
/s/ Zeynep HakimogluZeynep HakimogluPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
(Principal Executive Officer)



































A signed original of the written statement above required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to ClearOne Communications, Inc. and will be retained by ClearOne Communications, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Certificate of Trust Susquehanna Capital IV



 Exhibit 4.5 
 SUSQUEHANNA CAPITAL IV 
 Certificate of Trust of
Susquehanna Capital IV 
 March 3, 2010 
 THIS CERTIFICATE OF TRUST of Susquehanna Capital IV (the “Trust”), dated as of March 3, 2010, is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned, as trustees, to form a statutory trust
under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. § 3801, et seq.) (the “Act”). 
 1. Name. The name of the
statutory trust formed hereby is Susquehanna Capital IV. 
 2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of the
Trust with a principal place of business in the State of Delaware are BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware, 100 White Clay Center, Suite 102, Newark, Delaware 19711. 
 3. Effective Date. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon filing. 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the trustees of the Trust, have executed this Certificate of Trust in accordance with Section 3811(a) of the Act as of the date first-above written. 
  

					
	BNY MELLON TRUST OF DELAWARE,
	as Delaware Trustee
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Kristin K. Gullo

		 	Name:	 	 Kristin K. Gullo

		 	Title:	 	 Vice President

	
	 /s/ Drew Hostetter

	Drew K. Hostetter, as Administrative Trustee
	
	 /s/ Michael P. Squierdo

	Michael P. Squierdo, as Administrative Trustee
ALBERT STEPHENS

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

. 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 16

- 2861

________ _____________________/

Opinion filed September 13, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Angela Dempsey , Judge

. Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , and John Edwa rd Eagen, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of appellant’s response to the Court’s order of June 27,

2016, the Court has determined that the appeal is untimely. Acco rdingly, the

appeal is dismissed. The dismissal is without prejudice to appellant filing a proper

petition for belated appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure

9.141(c).

WOLF, LEWIS, and OSTERHAUS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Stephen J. Fanning, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Solta Medical, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Solta Medical, Inc.



|                     |  |  |  |        |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 4, 2010 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Stephen J. Fanning               
|                     |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Stephen J. Fanning                   
|                     |  |  |  | Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

I,
John F. Glenn, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Solta Medical, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Solta Medical, Inc.



|                     |  |  |  |        |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 4, 2010 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ John F. Glenn      
|                     |  |  |  | Name:  |  | John F. Glenn          
|                     |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6895

FRANKIE D. JONES , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE , Respondent

- Appellee

.

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

. Robert G. Doumar , Senior District Judge. ( 2:19

- cv
- 00415

- RGD

- DEM )

Submitted : October 20, 2020 Decided: October 23, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ , Circuit Judge , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Frankie D. Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Frankie D. Jones seek s to ap peal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition , and
the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration

. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction becaus e the notice of appeal was not timely filed. In civil cases, p arties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed . R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court entered its fina l order denying § 2254 relief on December 4, 2019, and entered its order denying the motion for reconsideration on January 24, 2020 . Jones
filed t he notice of appeal on June 7, 2020 , well beyond the appeal period for both orders

. *
Because Jones failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argu ment would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date Jones c ould have delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c) (1) ; Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 , 276 (1988).