alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
99.2





CERTIFICATE
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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Kof Buka
Ventures Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended October 31, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ritesh Chandra
Singh, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, 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 and belief:





1.The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.The
information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.








Date:  January
11, 2010





RITESH CHANDRA
SINGH


Ritesh Chandra Singh


Chief
Executive Officer,


President
and Director

















-1-
### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc., Complainant, 

### v. FAA Docket No. 16

- 14-05 Horry County Department ofAirports, South Carolina Respondent.

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is continuing its review ofDocketNo. 16-14-05. At this time, FAA has determined that additional time is necessary to ensure a fair and complete hearing ofthe matter before the agency. Part 16 is intended to expedite substantially the handling and disposition ofairport

-related complaints. [See, Rules ofPractice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, Final Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 53998 (October 16, 1996).] The rule provides that an extension oftime may be necessary or appropriate for a fair and complete consideration ofmatters before the agency. See 14 CFR 

### § 16.11(a). An extension oftime is reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, pursuant to 14 CFR 

### § I6.11(a), the Director does hereby extend the date that the Director's initial determination will be rendered in the above referenced case. The Director's Determination in this matter will be rendered on or about August 14, 2015.

Randall S. Fiertz Date Director, Office ofAirport Compliance and Management AnalysisCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 

### lOth, 2015, 

### I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class, postage paid) orpersonally delivered a true copy ofthe foregoing Order addressed to: Counsel for Respondent David Y. Bannard, Esq. Jeffrey R
. Blease, Esq. Jaclyn V. Pilch, Esq. Foley and Lardner LLP 

### 111 Huntington 

### Avenue Boston, MA 02199 Counsel for Complainant Robert G. Eastman Eastman 

### & Associates, LLC P.O. Box 180 Charleston, SC 29402

Hand-Delivered to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600) FAA Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100



# ~t:J!LJb **~**

Claudia Ro bertS" Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis
```

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 GenoMed, Inc. ("the Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Dr. David Moskowitz,
Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer, Chief Executive Officer
and President, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 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 result of operations of
          the Company.

/s/ Dr. David Moskowitz
Dr. David Moskowitz
President/Chief Executive Officer/Chairman of the Board/Chief
Financial Officer/Chief Accounting Officer

Dated: August 15, 2003
```
Kennedy WRIGHT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1033

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
CHARLESTON.

#### Johnson *v.*State Board of Agriculture.

Submitted March 17, 1899

Decided April 1, 1899.

*Mandamus*— Contracts—ConstihUional *Law*— Suits *Against State.*

Application by John T. Johnston for writ of *mandamus*against the State Board of Agriculture.

*Writ Denied.*

BraNNON, Judge:

John T. Johnston, having a contract with the State for furnishing stationery for state use, under chapter 16, Code 1891, seeks of this Court a *mandamus*to compel the state board of agriculture to buy stationery of him. The principles involved in this case are the same as those stated in the case of *Miller*v. *Board*(this day decided) 46 W. Va. 193. *Mandamus*refused.

*Writ Denied.*
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 14 April 2005

in Case C-163/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 80/68/EEC - Protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances - Articles 3, 4 and 5 - Directive 91/689/EEC - Hazardous waste - Article 2(1) and Article 6(1)

(2005/C 143/08)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-163/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and M. Konstantinidis) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: E. Skandalou) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 8 April 2003 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 135 of 07.06.2003

----
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Christopher Eugene BETTS, Defendant/Appellant.

No. ED 106347

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: June 11, 2019

Garrick F. D. Aplin, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Plaintiff/Respondent.

George E. Tillman, 1843 Sherman Drive, St. Charles, MO 63303, For Defendant/Appellant.

Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., James M. Dowd, J., and Robin Ransom, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

*339Christopher Eugene Betts (Appellant) appeals from the trial court's judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree, felonious restraint, two counts of tampering with a victim/witness in a felony prosecution, and five counts of domestic assault in the second degree. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court committed no reversible error. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

No. 83357 

FILE 

MAY 1 3 2022 

ELIZABETH A. BROWN 

CLERK OF SUPRO4E COURT 

BY 

DEPUTCLERK 

ALI KIA, M.D.; AND NEVADA 

HOSPITALIST GROUP, LLP, 

Petitioners, 

VS . 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE 

JASMIN D. LILLY-SPELLS, DISTRICT 

JUDGE, 

Respondents, 

FRANK J. DELEE, M.D.; FRANK J. 

DELEE M.D., P.C.; AND SUNRISE 

HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, 

LLC; AND CHOLOE GREEN, 

Real Parties in Interest. 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging 

a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in a medical malpractice 

action. 

Having considered the petition and its supporting 

documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and 

discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. 

Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (stating that the party 

seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); 

Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 

(1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this 

court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ 

petition). Specifically, we generally decline to exercise our discretion to 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A atga. QV-152,43 
grant writ petitions challenging orders denying motions to dismiss, and we 

are not convinced any of the exceptions apply in this case. See Chur v. 

Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 68, 70, 458 P.3d 336, 339 (2020) 

(discussing the exceptions to the general rule). We therefore 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

Hardesty • 

Al4CA-0 J. 

Stiglich 

, 

Herndon 

cc: Hon. Jasmin D. Lilly-Spells, District Judge 

Hon. Linda M. Bell, Chief Judge 

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas 

Collinson, Daehnke, Inlow & Greco 

Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP/Las Vegas 

Law Office of Daniel Marks 

Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVAOA 

(U) I947A 

2
----

----

I Informace

Komise

----

Směnné kurzy vůči euro (1)

18. srpna 2005

(2005/C 203/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Zdroj: referenční směnné kurzy jsou publikovány ECB.

----

----

Bez námitek k navrhovanému spojení

(Případ č. COMP/M.3870 – Carlyle/Otor)

(2005/C 203/02)

(Text s EHP závažností)

Dne 9. srpna 2005 se Komise rozhodla nevznést námitky proti výše uvedenému spojení a prohlásit ho za slučitelné se společným trhem. Toto rozhodnutí je založeno na článku 6 odst. 1 písm. b) nařízení Rady (ES) č. 139/2004. Celý text rozhodnutí je přístupný pouze ve francouzštině a bude uveřejněn poté, co bude zbaven obchodního tajemství, které může případně obsahovat. Text bude dosažitelný:

----

----

Bez námitek k navrhovanému spojení

(Případ č. COMP/M.3822 – Stora Enso/Schneidersöhne Papier)

(2005/C 203/03)

(Text s EHP závažností)

Dne 25. července 2005 se Komise rozhodla nevznést námitky proti výše uvedenému spojení a prohlásit ho za slučitelné se společným trhem. Toto rozhodnutí je založeno na článku 6 odst. 1 písm. b) nařízení Rady (ES) č. 139/2004. Celý text rozhodnutí je přístupný pouze v angličtině a bude uveřejněn poté, co bude zbaven obchodního tajemství, které může případně obsahovat. Text bude dosažitelný:

----

----

Bez námitek k navrhovanému spojení

(Případ č. COMP/M.3858 – Lehman Brothers/SCG/Starwood/Le Meridien)

(2005/C 203/04)

(Text s EHP závažností)

Dne 20. července 2005 se Komise rozhodla nevznést námitky proti výše uvedenému spojení a prohlásit ho za slučitelné se společným trhem. Toto rozhodnutí je založeno na článku 6 odst. 1 písm. b) nařízení Rady (ES) č. 139/2004. Celý text rozhodnutí je přístupný pouze v angličtině a bude uveřejněn poté, co bude zbaven obchodního tajemství, které může případně obsahovat. Text bude dosažitelný:

----
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 112]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28275]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-491-000]


Hardin Wind Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Hardin Wind Energy LLC's application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes 
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is January 15, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a3e5e6f1e0eccdcfcacdc6f0d6d3d3ccd1d7e3c5c6d1c08dc4ccd5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ddbd8cfded2f3f1f4f3f8cee8ededf2efe9ddfbf8effeb3faf2eb">[email protected]</span></a>. or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: December 26, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-28275 Filed 12-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1426

KIRIL ZAHARIEV,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HARTFORD LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. 

Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (9:20-cv-01072-RMG)

Submitted: January 21, 2022 Decided: January 27, 2022

Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kiril Zahariev, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth J. Bondurant, Atlanta, Georgia, Lewis Gregory 

Cook Horton, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Charleston, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kiril Zahariev appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation and denying Zahariev’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reopen. Zahariev 

argues on appeal that the district court failed to address his specific objections to the portion 

of the magistrate judge’s report finding that Zahariev was not entitled to relief under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). For the following reasons, we vacate and remand for further 

proceedings. 

The Federal Magistrates Act allows the district court to refer certain matters to a 

magistrate judge who may then submit proposed findings of fact and recommend a 

resolution to the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). “If any party objects to the 

magistrate judge’s recommendations, the district court must make a de novo determination 

of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 

objection is made.” United States v. De Leon-Ramirez, 925 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2019) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not address Zahariev’s 

claim that he was entitled to relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) because of discovery 

fraud by the Defendant. We conclude that the district court was obligated to review the 

magistrate judge’s report de novo on this issue because Zahariev timely filed specific 

objections to the magistrate judge’s proposed findings regarding this claim. Accordingly, 

we vacate the district court’s order and remand so that the district court may consider 

Zahariev’s objections. See id. (“[W]e generally [do not] reach factual or legal questions in 
3

a magistrate judge’s report that were not first subject to de novo review by the district 

court.”). Zahariev’s motion to expedite is denied.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED
#### In the Matter of Paul Merrick HOLLISTER, Bankrupt-Appellant; Marion H. Wells, Appellee.

No. 152.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 25, 1943.

Wise, Shepard, Houghton & Lebett, of New York City (Charles A. Lebett, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

John B. Doyle, of New York City (David W. Kahn, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before SWAN, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed on the opinion below, D. C., 47 F.Supp. 154.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                              JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                                    592754
<SECURITIES>                                              259978
<RECEIVABLES>                                             44281027
<ALLOWANCES>                                              263000
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          0
<PP&E>                                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            48458839
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     0
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                  7037690
<OTHER-SE>                                                2049047
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              48458839
<SALES>                                                   3251940
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          3251940
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          1235504
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          56000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        1449306
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           511130
<INCOME-TAX>                                              173700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       337430
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                              337430
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             .25<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             .23<F1>
<FN>
<F1>
</FN>
         

</TABLE>
EX-10.1



 





TERMINATION OF 

EMPLOYMENT CONTINUATION AGREEMENT




     WHEREAS,
MetLife, Inc. (the “Company”) and


                                                                     
                               (the “Executive”) have
entered into an Employment Continuation Agreement or Amended and Restated Employment Continuation
Agreement (in either case, as applicable, the “Agreement”) providing the Company and the Executive
with certain rights and obligations upon the occurrence of a Change of Control of the Company (as
defined in the Agreement);



     WHEREAS, the Company intends to establish the MetLife Executive Severance Plan (the “Plan”),
which will provide the Executive with eligibility for payments and benefits should a Change of
Control of the Company occur and the Executive subsequently terminate employment with Good Reason
or the Company terminate the Executive’s employment without Cause (each as defined in the Plan);



     WHEREAS, the Plan provides for payments and benefits in form to which the Executive is not
entitled under the Agreement or otherwise, including the compliance of such payments and benefits
with United States Internal Revenue Code Section 409A;



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive mutually desire to terminate the Agreement in favor of
making the Executive eligible for payments and benefits under the Plan;



     NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed between the Company and the Executive, for good consideration
provided, that the Agreement is terminated and void effective December 17, 2007.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive has hereunto set the Executive’s hand and the Company has
caused this Termination to be executed in its name on its behalf.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	METLIFE, INC.  
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Title:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Date:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	WITNESSED:
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	EXECUTIVE:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Date:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	WITNESSED:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 31, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 14594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7100]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,669]


Century Furniture, LLC, Chair Upholstery Campus and Upholstery 
Division; Hickory, NC; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration

    By applications dated February 9, 2009, a company official 
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's 
Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for 
Worker Adjustment Assistance, applicable to workers and former workers 
of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on January 12, 2009 
and published in the Federal Register on February 2, 2009 (74 FR 5871).
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the finding that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A) 
have not been met. The investigation revealed that the subject firm did 
not separate or threaten to separate a significant number or proportion 
of workers as required by Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided 
additional information regarding employment and layoffs at the subject 
firm.
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and the existing record and has determined that the 
Department will conduct further investigation.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of 
Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 13th day of March, 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-7100 Filed 3-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P