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

Exhibit 32.1

 

 

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S. SECTION 1350, AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Seitel, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Randall D. Stilley, President and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 8 (Thursday, January 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 1451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00364]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #15425 and #15426; CALIFORNIA Disaster Number CA-
00283]


Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public 
Assistance Only for the State of California

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for public assistance only for the state of California (FEMA-
4353-DR), dated 01/02/2018.
    Incident: Wildfires.
    Incident Period: 12/04/2017 and continuing.

DATES: Issued on 01/02/2018.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 03/05/2018.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 10/02/2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 01/02/2018, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

    Primary Counties: Santa Barbara, Ventura.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere...      2.500
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.500
For Economic Injury:
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 154255 
and for economic injury is 154260.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Jerome Edwards,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2018-00364 Filed 1-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Felipa FREIRE, Appellant, v. Peter JOEKEN, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4845

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.3



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Required by Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, created by Section 906 of

the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned officer of ECC
Capital Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: October 27, 2006



/s/    ROQUE A. SANTIRoque A. SantiChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)




The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference
into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
AUBURN NATIONAL BANCORPORATION, INC AND SUBSIDIARIES

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 Quarterly Report of Auburn National Bancorporation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the Report), I, David A. Hedges, VP, Controller and Chief Financial 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 14, 2008



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David A. Hedges                                       
|David A. Hedges VP, Controller and Chief Financial
Officer
Deon DANNA v. The RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL CO., LLC, et al.

No. 2018-CC-0331

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS**

Writ granted. The district court's order requiring defendants to amend their interrogatory answer to give a specific answer as directed by the court is vacated and set aside. The case is remanded to the district court to consider alternatives to its order, such as limiting the scope of the interrogatory and compelling defendants to answer the interrogatory as limited.

CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons:

Although this Court generally leaves pre-trial discovery matters to the great discretion of the trial court,1 this matter warrants our intervention. I therefore agree with the Court's decision to grant this writ and remand with the direction to the district court to consider alternatives to its order. Here, applicants assert that the response to interrogatories imposed by the trial court would force defendants and their counsel to make an untenable choice: commit perjury and violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, respectively, or subject themselves to being held in contempt of court or sanctioned. In my view, compelling such an alternative could create a material injustice.

1

*See,**Caminita v. State of Louisiana Through the Dep't of Transportation and Dev.* , 14-2317 (La. 2/6/15), 177 So.3d 321 (Crichton, J., concurring, questioning whether the exercise of this Court's supervisory jurisdiction is warranted on a pre-trial matter such as a Motion in Limine, quoting then-Associate Justice Catherine D. Kimball's concurring opinion in *Lenard v. Dilley* , 01-1522 (La. 1/15/02), 805 So.2d 175, 181, which stated that "reviewing decisions stemming from motions in limine is, in my view, an inefficient allocation of this court's already strained judicial time and resources...."). *See also,**Moak v. Illinois Central Railroad Company* , 93-0783 (La. 1/14/94), 631 So.2d 401, 406, *reh'g den.* 2/10/94 ("[i]t is well established that trial courts in Louisiana have broad discretion when regulating pre-trial discovery, which discretion will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse.") (internal citations omitted).

--------
Document

Exhibit 10.2







Amendment No. 3 to Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. 2018-09




August 13, 2021




Insurance Commissioner, State of California
c/o Chief, Securities Transaction Unit
300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700


Greetings:


As directed by Insurance Commissioner, State of California, the beneficiary, and for the account of Employers Compensation Insurance Company, Reno, Nevada, the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco hereby amends its Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit No. 2018-08 (the “Letter of Credit”), dated March 9, 2018, by decreasing the Credit Amount (as defined in the Letter of Credit) from $70,000,000 to $35,000,000. 


This document and the document first establishing the Letter of Credit (including any amendments) together constitute the Letter of Credit. Except as specifically amended herein, the terms and conditions of the Letter of Credit remain in full force and effect.






Very truly yours,




Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco


By                Title
 /s/ John “JJ” Jaravata     Associate Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS AND
BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                             687
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   58,370
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (489)
<INVENTORY>                                     56,786
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               117,333
<PP&E>                                         115,433
<DEPRECIATION>                                (45,414)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 197,899
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,916
<BONDS>                                         58,119
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                      90,128
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   197,899
<SALES>                                         88,224
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                88,224
<CGS>                                           57,756
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   57,756
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,605
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   266
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 898
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,699
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,172
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,527
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,527
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .61


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Therase LaShown WARREN, also known as “Slow,” Appellant.

No. 03-1996.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.

Decided May 17, 2004.

*685Jeffrey S. Paulsen, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gary R. Bryant-Wolf, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant-Appellant.

Therase LaShown Warren, No. 10553-041, Pekin, IL, pro se.

Before MURPHY and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG,* Judge of the United States Court of International Trade.

*

 The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Therase LaShown Warren of distributing eight and a half ornees of crack cocaine to a cooperating witness on July 15, 2002. Warren appeals asserting the evidence was insufficient to convict him. Having carefully reviewed the record in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude a reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Warren distributed crack cocaine. *See United States v.*Davis, 357 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir.2004) (standard of review). Evidence included testimony by the cooperating witness, testimony by the surveillance officers, transcripts of telephone conversations between Warren and the cooperating witness, Warren’s fingerprints on the plastic bag containing the crack cocaine sold to the cooperating witness, and Warren’s possession of the prerecorded buy money in his pants pocket immediately after the transaction. Any questions about the cooperating witness’s testimony was for the jury alone to decide, and other evidence supported the cooperating witness’s testimony. *See id.*Contrary to Warren’s assertion, the officers thoroughly searched the cooperating witness and his vehicle before the transaction occurred.

We thus affirm Warren’s conviction.***See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

**

 The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
December 3, 2014

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Economic Impact Analysis for Proposed National Emissio n Standards for

Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities

FROM: Tom Walton

AEG (C439-02)

TO: Kim Teal

MMG ( **D243-04** )

This document addresses the economic impacts of the propo sed National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilitie s. Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and output levels . If changes in market prices and output levels in the primary markets are significant e nough, impacts on other markets

are also examined.

Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with the rul e and the distribution of these costs among affected facilities can have a role in de termining how the market will change in response to a rule. This rule applies to the surface c oating and related operations at facilities that are major sources and are engaged, eithe r in part or in whole, in the manufacture or rework of commercial, civil, or milita ry aerospace vehicles or components. The proposed rule would add recordkeeping and repo rting provisions for specialty coating operations, but would not change the com pliance costs for operations already being regulated by the existing emission standards. Therefore, the annual costs are calculated for only the 109 aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities that reported having specialty coating operations. The estimated ann ual costs for this proposed rule are less than one million dollars in the first year and in succeeding years (less than $850,000 in the first year and less than $600,000 in s ucceeding years). These costs are estimated for the 109 facilities that, based on information reported by facilities, appear to have specialty coating operations. Thus, the a verage cost per facility is less than $10,000 per year. These costs are small compared to s ales for the companies in aerospace manufacturing and reworking. For example, in 2012 t he average annual value of shipments (a rough estimate of sales) for firms in the other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing was almost $50 million (Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census for NAICS 336413 for 2012). In this case the cost to sales estimate would be approximately 0.02%. Costs this small would not have significant market impacts whether they were absorbed by the firm or passe d on as price increases.Because no small firms face control costs, there is no significant impact on small entities.

Thus this regulation is not expected to have significant i mpact on a substantial number of

small entities.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

STEVEN LEONARD VERBECK,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 406 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of January, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner is:

Whether the Superior Court erred in holding for DUI sentencing purposes that the 

Defendant’s conviction was a first offense in ten years as opposed to a second 

offense in ten years based upon the defective holding in Commonwealth v. 

Chichkin, 232 A.3d 959 (Pa. Super. 2020) that acceptance of ARD could not be 

treated as a prior conviction?

Justice Brobson did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
Kenneth WALKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3142

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
B.B., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1649

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2521 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2521

      To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Mandipropamid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 7, 2012

 Ms. Landrieu introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Mandipropamid.

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

SECTION 1. MANDIPROPAMID.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.12.07 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Mandipropamid) is amended by 
striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/
2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6633
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL DEVON POWELL, a/k/a Petey, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:99-cr-00024-3F; 7:04-cv-00077-F) Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 7, 2006 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Devon Powell, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael Devon Powell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Powell has not made the requisite showing. In addition, the court limits its review to the issues raised in Appellant’s informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). This court generally does not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. SeeMuth v. United States , 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (noting that issues ra ised for the first time on appeal are generally not considered absent exceptional circumstances). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately- 3 - presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000751256
<NAME> DYCO OIL AND GAS PROGRAM 1985-2 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          66,133
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,009
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               120,142
<PP&E>                                      22,519,577
<DEPRECIATION>                              22,396,554
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 264,201
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,089
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     256,112
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   264,201
<SALES>                                        209,291
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               208,743
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  198,352
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,391
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,391
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,391
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>