alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.0

Section 1350 Certification

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Energy
Partners, Ltd. (the Company), that the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Company at the end of and for the periods covered by such Report.

These certifications shall not be deemed to be filed for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be
incorporated by reference into any registration statement filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, unless specifically identified therein as being incorporated by reference.

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



|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Richard A. Bachmann                                           
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer)

Dated: August 9, 2006



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Joseph H. LeBlanc, Jr.                                    
|Joseph H. LeBlanc, Jr. Treasurer (principal financial officer)

Dated: August 9, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 68 (Friday, April 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 16432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8159]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

[OMB Control No. 3206-0215; OPM Form RI 25-49]


Submission for OMB Review; Request for Comments on an Existing 
Information Collection

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L.104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) a request for review of an existing information 
collection. This information collection, ``Verification of Full-Time 
School Attendance'' (OMB Control No. 3206-0215; OPM form RI 25-49), is 
used to verify that adult student annuitants are entitled to payments. 
OPM must confirm that a full-time enrollment has been maintained.
    Approximately 10,000 RI 25-49 forms are completed annually. Each 
form takes approximately 60 minutes to complete. The annual estimated 
burden for the form is 10,000 hours.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Cyrus S. Benson on (202) 606-
4808, FAX (202) 606-0910 or by E-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#397a404b4c4a177b5c574a565779564954175e564f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b7f4cec5c2c499f5d2d9c4d8d9f7d8c7da99d0d8c1">[email protected]</span></a>. Please 
include your mailing address with your request.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 30 calendar 
days from the date of this publication.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to--

James K. Freiert, Deputy Assistant Director, Retirement Services Group 
Program, Center for Retirement and Insurance Services, U.S. Office of 
Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3305, Washington, DC 
20415-3500 and
Alexander Hunt, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information & Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office 
Building, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.

    For information regarding administrative coordination contact: 
Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, RIS Support Services/
Support Group, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., 
Room 4H28, Washington, DC 20415, (202) 606-0623.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Kathie Ann Whipple,
Acting Director.
 [FR Doc. E9-8159 Filed 4-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-38-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
STATE of Louisiana IN the INTEREST OF S.H., et al.

NO. 2018-CJ-0366

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 6, 2018

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
EXHIBIT 31.2

         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
         ---------------------------------------------------------------

     I, David F. Knapfel, hereby certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10K-SB of Sockeye
Seafood Group, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, the annual 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 the annual report.

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in the annual report, fairly present in all
material respects our financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows as of, and for, the periods presented in the annual report.

4. The other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) and we have:

a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
    material information relating to Sockeye Seafood Group, Inc.,
    including subsidiaries, if any, is made known to us by others within
    those entities, particularly during the period in which this
    annual report is being prepared;

b)  evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and
    procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
    filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)  presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
    effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
    our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.  The other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to our auditors and the audit committee of our
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)  that there were no significant deficiencies in the design or
    operation of internal controls which could adversely affect our
    ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
    and have further advised our auditors that there we are not aware
    of any material weaknesses in our internal controls; and

b)  that there was no fraud, whether or not material, that involved
    our management or other employees who have a significant role in
    our internal controls; and

6.  The other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual
that there were no significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation.

                                   Sockeye Seafood Group, Inc., Registrant

Dated: February 1, 2006                /s/ David F. Knapfel
                                   ---------------------------------------
                                   By: David F. Knapfel, Chief Financial
                                   Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
PD-0319-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 6/17/2015 4:05:27 PM

Accepted 6/19/2015 11:43:30 AM

LAURA KNIGHT ABEL A£°fTM

219 DOLAN ST.

EL PASO, TEXAS 79905

Telephone Number (915) 471-7498

E-Mail Address: Salomelknight3714(ajatt.net

June 17, 2015

FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Clerk of theCourt June 19,2015

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

209 West 14th St. Suite 106 »nr, aooota o, mi/

Austin, Texas 78701 ABEL AC0STA- CLERK

Re: 3rd Request for Extension of Time to file Appellant Brief

PRD Number 0319-15

LAURA KNIGHT

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee

APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW of the

EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS JUDGMENT in No. 08-12-00355-CR

Affirming conviction in Cause No. 20090D02461 from the

346th Judicial District Court of El Paso County, Texas

Dear Sir:

My name is LauraKnight and I am attempting to file a "pro-se" appeal for discretionary

review in your court.

I called your court clerk two days ago, Mr. Mark Adams, to request a 3rd extension of

time as to the due date for filing an appellant's brief. I am informed that I can write to

your court as to my request.

1am not an attorney and I do not have the funds to hire an attorney. Ijust received notice

from the El Paso District Clerk as to the my trial exhibits and 1am being told that if my

exhibits are not all therethen 1haveto returnto the 346th DistrictCourt as to getting my

trial exhibits. My appellate briefis due June 29, 2015 and I need time to make sure that

my Court Record and Exhibits are complete for your court's review and acceptance.
For the foregoing reason I am not finish with my brief. I need more time to finish my

brief and submit the same to your court. I am doing the best with what resources I have.

I am asking for an extension to meet my obligations with your appellate requirements.

Bythisletter 1request an extension of at least 30days to file my appellant's brief.

I wantan opportunity to pursue an appeal withyourcourt and I cannot do so on the time

schedule that I am being squeezedin collectingmy evidence and transcript.

Respectfully,

Laura Knight
Lee RHONEELLI, a/k/a Lee Raymond Rhoneelli, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5392

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Frank L. ADAMS, Jr., Appellant, v. OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, Putnam County, Florida and Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-3748

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
A ALBEMARLE* 

P. 1 

RECEIVED 

Albemarle Corporation 

OPPT CBIC 

451 Florida Street Telephone: 225-388-8011 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801-1765 Facsimile: 225-388-7686 2013 HAR "8 AH 10* 3*/ 

February 19, 2013 

Via Email 

Document Control Office (7407M) 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) 

Environmental Protection Agency ' 

EPA East Room 

1201 Constitution Ave., N.W. 

Washington, DC 20004-3302 111 111 Nil III 111 

4 0 1 3 0 Q 0 0 0 "2" 

Attn: TSCA Section 4 

RE: Benzenediamine, ar, ar-diethyl-ar-methyl-, CAS#68479-98-1 

In compliance with the final rule, "Testing of Certain High Production Volume 

Chemical; Second Group of Chemicals", 76FR1067, January 17, 2011, 

Albemarle Corporation and Lonza submit this Request for Modification of Test 

Standards for "Benzenediamine, ar, ar-diethyl-ar-methyl-", CAS#68479-98-1. 

For end point F1 - Mammalian Toxicity: Repeated Dose, 

Reproductive/Developmental Screen, Albemarle and Lonza have submitted 

numerous repeated dose studies. With those submittals Albemarle and Lonza 

requested derogation of this testing requirement. EPA agreed that the repeated 

dose test would no longer be necessary. The prenatal developmental toxicity 

test, however, would still be required. Since that decision, there have been 

several back and forth submissions on the methodology for conducting first the 

preliminary range finding study and then the final study. The range finding study 

is complete and the final protocol has been reviewed by EPA. EPA forwarded 

comments on the definitive test protocol to Albemarle on January 31, 2013. 

Those comments are under advisement by the European consortium responsible 

for this chemical under REACH in the EU. This test is being conducted to satisfy 

this end point for both the test rule referenced above and REACH registration for 

the substance. 

The definitive prenatal developmental toxicity test is scheduled to begin on March 

25, 2013 assuming all comments from EPA on the protocol can be resolved 

within the consortium. A final report for the definitive test is expected by 

December 31, 2013. Thus Albemarle and Lonza request an extension of the 

time for submittal of the final report until December 31, 2013. 

!ao ON smiNoo 
p. 2 

If you have any questions about our request or would like to discuss alternatives 

to our requested modification, please call me at 225-388-7776. 

Kim Boudreaux * 

Sr. Advisor, Regulatory Affairs 

cc: John Shaeffer 

Chemical Control Division (7405M) 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1201 Constitution Ave., N.W. 

Washington, DC 20004-3302 
p. 3
Mark JACKSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s) v. Michelle JACKSON, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1835

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 10, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
STATE of Louisiana v. Rudy FRANCIS

NO. 2018-KK-0264

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 6, 2018

Denied.
From: david.kayes@daimler.com

To: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: brian.burton@daimler.com, donald.keski-hynnila@daimler.com, francis.seymour_jr@daimler.com

Date: 07/12/2011 01:25 PM

Subject: Model year 2013

Byron,

There is one addition to the GHG regs that the agency proposed making that is really a wise change. I 

am not sure that, during our meeting a few weeks ago, I stressed adequately how important this change 

is. (I should have sent you this email right after our meeting, but I immediately went on vacation and just 

returned. Hopefully, this email is not too late to lock in place this change.) 

The proposed change was to allow a manufacturer to certify some but not all MY 2013 vehicles. If I 

remember correctly, a manufacturer could earn early credits after certifying the manufacturer's last 

vehicle family in MY 2013 (either in an averaging category or in all categories, I do not remember). This 

provision, or some other allowance for some early MY 2013 builds, is important to us because we are 

beginning to build MY 2013 vehicles very soon. For example, some of our vehicles take a long time to 

build from start to finish; in order that we have the appropriate MY at the time of sale to a customer, we 

start to build very early (and as you know the build begins by stamping rails with a vehicle's MY). Build up 

of some MY 2013 vehicles will begin in September of this year, before I expect that we will have our 

certificates from the EPA. In other words, we will very soon start building MY 2013 vehicles but will likely 

not have certificates for those vehicles under the GHG regs. Because we still want to take advantage of 

the early MY 2013 certification, we need a provision that allows manufacturers out of the earlier-proposed 

requirement that a manufacturer must certify all MY 2013 products in order to certify any. In turn, it is 

important for us to have this newly proposed addition or some other one that allows some uncertified MY 

2013 vehicles without jeopardizing a manufacturer's entire MY 2013 fleet certification.

Thanks,

Dave

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

David Kayes

Compliance and Regulatory Affairs --- Environmental Compliance

Daimler Trucks

(503) 745-9162 Office

(503) 265-9838 Mobile

David.Kayes@Daimler.com

If you are not the intended addressee, please inform us immediately that you have received this e-mail in 

error, and delete it. We thank you for your cooperation.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA
- 2011
- 02 60 SNPRM **Directorate ID:** 

### 2010
-NM
- 242
- AD Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.
Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA
- IR
- M
- 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because

### Page 2 of 3

**For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.:

**ASE Date** 

**Branch Manager Date**
**Docket Number FAA -**  **2014 -**  **0138**
Bateman
      McDuffie, Inc.Certified
      Public Accountants19
      Briar Hollow Lane, Suite 263Houston,
      Texas 77027(713)
      552-9800FAX
      (713) 552-9700www.batemanhouston.com





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS





We
consent to the inclusion in this Form 20-F of Panoshan Marketing Corp. for the
year ended June 30, 2009, of our report dated January 12, 2009, on our audit of
the financial statements of Panoshan Marketing Corp. as of June 30, 2008, and
2007, and for the two years then ended, and for the period from inception, April
27, 2004, through June 30, 2008. .







/s/Bateman McDuffie,
Inc. BATEMAN McDUFFIE,
Inc,


Formerly
known as


BATEMAN
& CO., INC., P.C.











Houston,
Texas


January
13, 2010














International
Associate


UK 200
GROUP


Associate
Offices in Principal Cities Around The World
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of Winland Electronics, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the Report), I, Lorin E. Krueger, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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 results of operations of the Company. Dated: May 16, 2005 /s/ Lorin E. KruegerLorin E. KruegerChief Executive Officer 21
#### Richard W. CARR, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-15356.

D.C. No. CV-01-00638-LDG.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 16, 2004.

Decided May 4, 2004.

Wendy E. Miller, Harold P. Gewerter, Harold P. Gewerter, Ltd., Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

James F. Pico, Rebecca Mastrangelo, Pico & Mitchell, Las Vegas, NV, Robert *726H. Hess, Robert J. McKennon, Barger & Wolen LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendant Appellee.

Before WALLACE, KOZINSKI, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff Richard W. Carr, Jr., timely appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

1. The district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs claim for total disability benefits on federal preclusion grounds. *Clark v. Columbia/HCA Info. Servs., Inc.,*117 Nev. 468, 25 P.3d 215, 224 (2001) (“Federal law governs the collateral estoppel effect of a case decided by a federal court.”). The holding in *Carr v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Co.,*23 Fed.Appx. 857 (9th Cir.2002) (unpublished disposition), that Dr. Carr was *not*totally disabled when he quit working precludes his claim here that he *was*totally disabled when he quit working.

2. With respect to Plaintiffs claim for residual disability benefits, however, the district court erred. Residual disability benefits for the period relevant here were not at issue in the earlier litigation. Nor does the prior “total disability” holding control this issue: The fact that Dr. Carr was not totally disabled when he quit working did not cause the Provident policy to terminate, because Dr. Carr was under age 65. Additionally, on the pleadings it does not “appear[ ] beyond doubt that ... [P]laintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim [for residual disability benefits] which would entitle him to relief.” *Roe v. City of San Diego,*356 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). There has been no factual finding as to when Dr. Carr’s condition first manifested itself, and the policy is ambiguous regarding the availability of residual disability benefits to one who is not working.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in part. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.