alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 2153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00511]


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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

[Public Notice: 2017-6011]


Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the United States.

ACTION: Submission for OMB review and comments request.

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

SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), as a part 
of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, 
invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the 
proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995. Our customers will be able to submit this form on paper or 
electronically.
    This form is used by insurance brokers to register with Export-
Import Bank. It provides EXIM staff with the information necessary to 
make a determination of the eligibility of the broker to receive 
commission payments under Export-Import Bank's credit insurance 
programs.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 15, 2018 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically on 
WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV (EIB 92-79) or by mail to Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20038 Attn: OMB 
3048-0024 Form can be viewed at http://www.exim.gov/pub/pending/eib92-79.pdf

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Title and Form Number: EIB 92-79 Broker Registration Form.
    OMB Number: 3048-0024.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Need and Use: This form is used by insurance brokers to register 
with Export Import Bank. The form provides EXIM staff with the 
information necessary to make a determination of the eligibility of the 
broker to receive commission payments under Export Import Bank's credit 
insurance programs.
    Affected Public: This form affects entities engaged in brokering 
export credit insurance policies.
    Annual Number of Respondents: 17.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 15 minutes.
    Frequency of Reporting or Use: Once every three years.
    Annual Public Burden: 4.25 hours.
    Government Expenses:
    Reviewing Time/Hours: 2.
    Responses per Year: 17.
    Review Time per Year: 34 hours.
    Average Wages per Hour: $42.5.
    Wages per Year: $1,445.
    Benefits & Overhead: 20%.
    Total Government Cost: $1,734.

Bassam Doughman,
IT Specialist.
[FR Doc. 2018-00511 Filed 1-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
§ 91.411 Altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and

inspections.

(a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled airspace under IFR unless—

(1) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, each static pressure system, each altimeter instrument,

and each automatic pressure altitude reporting system has been tested and inspected and found to

comply with appendices E and F of part 43 of this chapter;

(2) Except for the use of system drain and alternate static pressure valves, following any opening and

closing of the static pressure system, that system has been tested and inspected and found to comply

with paragraph (a), appendix E, of part 43 of this chapter; and

(3) Following installation or maintenance on the automatic pressure altitude reporting system of the ATC

transponder where data correspondence error could be introduced, the integrated system has been

tested, inspected, and found to comply with paragraph (c), appendix E, of part 43 of this chapter.

(b) The tests required by paragraph (a) of this section must be conducted by—

(1) The manufacturer of the airplane, or helicopter, on which the tests and inspections are to be

performed;

(2) A certificated repair station properly equipped to perform those functions and holding—

(i) An instrument rating, Class I;

(ii) A limited instrument rating appropriate to the make and model of appliance to be tested;

(iii) A limited rating appropriate to the test to be performed;

(iv) An airframe rating appropriate to the airplane, or helicopter, to be tested; or

(3) A certificated mechanic with an airframe rating (static pressure system and system integration tests).

(c) Altimeter and altitude reporting equipment approved under Technical Standard Orders are

considered to be tested and inspected as of the date of their manufacture.

(d) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled airspace under IFR at an altitude

above the maximum altitude at which all altimeters and the automatic altitude reporting system of that

airplane, or helicopter, have been tested.
Echo Automotive Inc.; 10-KA

EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this Annual Report of Echo Automotive Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Rodney H. McKinley, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:

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

|                       |                                                                
|---------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: April
 16, 2013 | /s/ Rodney
 H. McKinley                                        
|                       |                                                                
|                       | Rodney H.
 McKinley                                            
|                       | Chief
 Financial Officer                                       
|                       | (Principal
 Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
|                       |                                                                
|                       |                                                                

5

---
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

I, Guilbert Cuison, 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,
Business Outsourcing Services, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended November 30, 2009 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 fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Business
Outsourcing Services, Inc.


Date: March 12, 2010             By: /s/ Guilbert Cuison
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                         Guilbert Cuison
                                  Title: President, Secretary, Director
                                         (Principal Executive Officer, Principal
                                         Accounting Officer and Principal
                                         Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Business Outsourcing Services, Inc. and will be retained by Business
Outsourcing Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
December 21, 2010 

Luis Alberto Valencia 

Quality Director 

Avianca 

Avenida El dorado #106-74 

Hangar 2 Piso 2 

Bogotá 

Colombia 

Dear Mr. Valencia: 

This letter is to inform you that we have received and begun processing your petition for 

exemption. It acknowledges receipt of the petition and describes how we will process it. 

We Have the Petition 

We’ve received your November 23, 2010, petition on behalf of Aerovias del Continente 

Americano, Avianca Airlines (Avianca) for an exemption to part 121, Appendix M (item 18) 

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This exemption, if granted, would allow 

Avianca to operate its Airbus A320-214 aircraft (MSN 4567) without meeting the flight 

control parameter rates required by the regulation. 

We’ve added your petition to the public docket (No. FAA-2010-1195) and we are processing 

it. We will contact you if we need additional information. 

How We’ll Process the Petition 

A petition for an exemption, according to 14 CFR 11.63(d), must be sent to the FAA at least 

120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. In addition, we publish a 

summary of the petition in the Federal Register for public comment unless, according to 

14 CFR 11.87, we determine that good cause exists for not publishing it. 
2 

We will advise you of the agency's final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions in the meantime, you may contact me at (202) 267-4059. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Frances Shaver 

Program Analyst 

Aircraft and Airport Rules Division
K.G., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D16-3812

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 18, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
BIOMATRIX, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          46,700
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,300
<PP&E>                                          39,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 113,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,300
<BONDS>                                         11,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      91,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   113,800
<SALES>                                         57,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                66,400
<CGS>                                           17,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,500
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,300
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.55


</TABLE>
**                                                                                                                                                                   **Exhibit 32.1                                                   

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2016 of All Marketing Solutions, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Nathathai Thongda, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

Date: June 30, 2017

/s/ *Nathathai Thongda*

Nathathai Thongda

President and Director

Principal Executive Officer

Principal Financial Officer

Principal Accounting Officer
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATE
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002








Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Concurrent Computer Corporation (the
“Corporation”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation certifies
that:





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





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








May 2,
2008








/s/
      Emory O. BerryEmory
      O. BerryChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)
STATE EX REL. Winford Lagard MCFARLAND, Sr. v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2016-KH-2239

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 2, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator shows no lower court error. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2 ; *State v. McKinney* , 406 So.2d 160, 161 (La. 1981) ("The general rule is that a guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings prior to the plea and precludes review thereof either by appeal or by post-conviction remedy."). In addition, relator's sentencing claim is not cognizable on collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3 ; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State* , 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of mBeach Software, Inc. a Florida corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending April 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), William Gaffney, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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; and(2)
	The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to mBeach Software, Inc., and will be retained by mBeach Software, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  /s/ William Gaffney William Gaffney Chief Financial Officer May 17, 2010
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
C HRYSTAL LEE HINCHLIFFE , A ppellant ,
v. Cas e No

. 5D 21 -7 49 LT Cas e No. 2019 -C F -0 01280 -A
STAT E OF FLORIDA ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/
Decision filed June 14, 2022 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citru s County , Richard A. Howard, J udge.
Matthew J

. Metz, Pu blic D efender, and Andrew Mich, A ssistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley M oody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant A ttorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
A FFIRMED.

EVAN DER , WALLIS and EDWARDS , JJ., concur

.
Jeremy HICKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D16-3749

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Ivett BELLO and Xabier Garay, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-0207

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 06, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Terminated. Granted. Dismissed.
Exhibit 99.2

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



      In  connection  with  the Quarterly report of Broadleaf Capital Partners,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003,as
filed  with the Securities and Exchange Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I,  Melissa  R.  Blue,  acting in the capacity as the Interim Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



/s/ Melissa R. Blue
-----------------------------
     Melissa R. Blue
     Interim Chief Financial Officer
     November 25, 2003
Catherine EBERHART, Former Wife, Appellant, v. Dennis EBERHART, Former Husband, Appellee.

No. 1D16-3984

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 23, 2018

Jason K. Hutchinson of Hutchinson Law, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Michael M. Giel of Giel Family Law, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This case requires us to interpret imprecise language in a consent final judgment. Our review is de novo. *See* *Toussaint v. Toussaint* , 107 So.3d 474, 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Because the trial court's interpretation was wrong, we reverse.

Catherine Eberhart served in the United States Navy for nearly twenty-one years. She had already served about ten years when she married Dennis Eberhart in 1993. She retired in 2004, and she divorced eight years later. Through their consent divorce judgment, the parties agreed that Catherine Eberhart would pay "undifferentiated support," and Dennis Eberhart would waive (temporarily, at least) any entitlement to a share of his wife's Navy pension.

The judgment also had a provision, though, saying if the undifferentiated support ended, the court could award Dennis Eberhart "a one-half share of the marital portion" of Catherine Eberhart's pension. And it parenthetically defined the "marital portion" to mean "the date of marriage to the date of this Final Judgment"-the language central to this appeal.

The parties agree that the undifferentiated support ended, and they seem to agree Dennis Eberhart is entitled to "a one-half share of the marital portion" of the pension. The only dispute is about what to make of the parenthetical definition. In other words, what is the "marital portion" of which Dennis Eberhart deserves "a one-half share"?

The marital portion of any retirement plan is the portion accumulated during the marriage. *See* *Horton v. Horton* , 62 So.3d 689, 691 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). The parenthetical's language is consistent with this general rule. The marital portion includes all retirement benefits Catherine Eberhart accumulated during the marriage-or, said another way, all retirement benefits Catherine Eberhart accumulated from "the date of marriage to the date of [the] Final Judgment." If she stopped accruing benefits when she retired in 2004, then that is when the marital portion was set, even if the marriage lasted years longer.

The parties could have, of course, agreed to other terms. They could have defined "marital portion" to mean something other than what it usually means. But the language at issue here does not show that the Eberharts did that. The language does not indicate they intended the court to determine the "marital portion" by looking to anything other than (i) the retirement *430benefits accumulated while the parties were married and (ii) the retirement benefits accumulated while the parties were *not* married.

REVERSED .

Kelsey, Winokur, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
M.C., the Father, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1124

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

JULY 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.

Dismissed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF TRM CORPORATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, I, Daniel E. OBrien, Chief Financial Officer of TRM Corporation (the Company),
hereby certify that the accompanying Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2005 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. Dated: May 16, 2005
    /s/ Daniel E. OBrienDaniel E. OBrienChief Financial Officer 29
Alaric M. EMANUEL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1183

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Jacquis SAINTAUDE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2444

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

January 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.