alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Brooktrout, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, EricR. Giler, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 
| Date: May 7, 2004 | By:    | /s/  ERIC  R. GILER   |   |
|-------------------|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|              |   | Eric  R. Giler                  |   |
|              |   | *President*                     |   |
|              |   | *(Principal Executive Officer)* |   |

 

1

----
Page 1 of 3

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FINE LINE COMMERCIAL, LLC §

§

Plaintiff & § Court of Appeals No.: 03-15-00558-CV

Counter-Defendant, §

§ Trial Court Case No.: C-1-CV-15-006001

v. §

§

ATX PAINTING COMPANY, INC. §

§

Defendant & §

Counter-Plaintiff. §

ATX PAINTING COMPANY, INC.’S

MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

COMES NOW APPELLANT ATX PAINTING COMPANY, INC. and hereby 

requests that the Court of Appeals FOR THE Third District of Texas dismiss the 

above-entitled and numbered appeal, without prejudice, pursuant to Texas Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 42. 

Dated: Thursday, September 10, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Ronald A. Ortman

_______________________________

Ronald A. Ortman

Texas State Bar No.: 15324407

ORTMAN LAW FIRM

700 N. Saint Mary’s St., Ste. 1400

San Antonio, Texas 78205-3535

T. (210) 591-1770

Email: raortman@raortman.com

ACCEPTED

03-15-00558-CV

6864042

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

9/10/2015 11:42:49 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 9/10/2015 11:42:49 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
Page 2 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

As required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.1(a)(5), I certify that I

have conferred, or made a reasonable attempt to confer, with all other parties

which are listed below about the merits of this motion with the following results:

David M. Walters, attorney of record for FINE LINE COMMERCIAL, LLC:

☐ opposes motion;

☐ does not oppose motion;

☐ agrees with motion;

☐ would not say whether motion is opposed;

☒ did not return my message regarding the

motion.

/s/ Ronald A. Ortman

_____________________________

Ronald A. Ortman

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

DATE: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2015.
Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing ATX PAINTING

COMPANY, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE has been served

upon all counsel/parties, as listed below, by placing a copy of same in the United

States mail, certified, return receipt requested, facsimile, electronically by ProDoc

e-File, and/or by hand delivery on Thursday, September 10, 2015.

WALTERS HULL, PLLC via eService

1101 Navasota Street Suite 1

Austin, TX 78702

Tel. (512) 236-1114

Fax (512) 236-1292

Brian E. Walters

Texas Bar No. 24056489

brian@waltershull.com

Mark A. Hull

Texas Bar No. 24042542

mark@waltershull.com

David M. Walters

Texas Bar No. 24056490

david@waltershull.com

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

/s/ Ronald A. Ortman

_____________________________

Ronald A. Ortman

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
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 Butte Highland Mining Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul A Hatfield, Chief Accounting Officer and Principal Accounting 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 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: April 5, 2010

| | By:   /s/ Paul A. Hatfield
_____________________________
Paul A. Hatfield
Chief Accounting Officer
Principal Accounting Officer
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

SILVA HINCH, No. 84438 Appellant, vs. DUSTY JENSEN, Respondent. 

# MED APR 0 8 2022

A. BROWN EAlE COUIU ERK ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is a pro se appeal from a district court order granting a motion to modify custody of a minor child and from a district court order granting a motion for temporary sole custody of a minor child. Fourth Judicial District Court, Elko County; Alvin R. Kacin, Judge.

Review of the notice of appeal and documents before this court reveals a jurisdictional defect. Notice of entry of the order granting the motion to modify custody was served on appellant, via mail, on February 3, 2022. Thus, the notice of appeal was due to be filed in the district court by March 10, 2022. See NRAP 4(a)(1); NRCP 6(d). Appellant, however, did not file the notice of appeal in the district court until March 17, 2022. Further, an order awarding temporary custody of a minor child is not substantively appealable. In re Temporary CustOdy of Five Minors, 105 Nev. 441, 777 P.2d 901 (1989); cf. NRAP 3A(b)(7) (authorizing an appeal from a district court order finally establishing the custody of minor children). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction, see Healy v. Volkswagenwerk, 103 Nev. 329, 330-31,
SUPREME Cowls oF NEVADA (0) 1947A 44114to741 P.2d 432, 433 (1987) (this court lacks jurisdiction over an untimely

notice of appeal), and

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

J.

Silver 4. 

# CeeeN, ,J. 

# Pick. Cadish Pickering J.

ce: Hon. Alvin R. Kacin, District Judge Silva Hinch Dusty Jensen Elko County Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
t O) 1947A 4EN10 2
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MANILA LAKMAITREE,

Appellant,

v.

21st MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1263

[March 7, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Joel T. Lazarus, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No. 

CACE15011997.

Brian Korte of Korte & Wortman, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Sonia Henriques McDowell of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., 

Orlando, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

After the court entered an involuntary dismissal against the lender for 

failing to establish standing, the borrower requested an award of its 

attorney’s fees and costs. The court denied the motion, and the borrower 

appeals.

This Court answered the question raised in this appeal in our en banc

opinion in Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Glass, 219 So. 3d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2017). We subsequently addressed the issue in several cases, including 

Christiana Tr., a Div. of Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc’y, FSB for Normandy 

Mortgage Loan Tr., Series 2013-18 v. Rushlow, 231 So. 3d 558 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2017), and, more recently, Sabido v. Bank of New York Mellon, 4D16-

2944, 2018 WL 735950 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 7, 2018). Furthermore, our 

sister districts have uniformly reached the same conclusion. Bank of N.Y.

Mellon Tr. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 215 So. 3d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); HFC 

Collection Ctr., Inc. v. Alexander, 190 So. 3d 1114, 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 

2016).

We reject the borrower’s argument that it is inequitable to apply these 
2

decisions; and, regardless, this Court’s unanimous en banc decision is 

binding on this panel. Therefore, the circuit court’s order is affirmed. 

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., GROSS and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Dennis, 

With respect to the COU EAS upcoming bid request, Delta will continue to offer the minimum required 

service but due to the success of this route, we will not be requiring any subsidy amount. 

The airport, county and local community has done a great job on promoting our service and we are 

pleased with the community's response in our air service. 

We will submit a formal letter of notification if one is needed. 

Thank you, 

Karen Zachary 

Delta Air Lines, Network Planning 

(404)714-2192
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A)
BROOKTROUT TECHNOLOGY, INC.'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND 
STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) BROOKTROUT TECHNOLOGY, INC.'S 10-Q FOR THE 
PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          20,865
<SECURITIES>                                     8,309
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,162
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,100
<INVENTORY>                                      8,511
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,867
<PP&E>                                           8,440
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,972
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  60,831
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,843
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           107
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    60,831
<SALES>                                         14,725
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,725
<CGS>                                            6,543
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,543
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,118
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,455)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (980)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,475)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,475)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 99.4**

 

# **Report of Management on Compliance**

 

 

We, as members of management of Capital One AutoFinance, Inc. (“COAF”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Capital One FinancialCorporation, are responsible for complying with the requirements of Sections2.4(a), 2.4(b), 2.4(c), 3.7, 3.8, 3.9(a), 3.11, 4.2, 4.3(a), 4.5, 4.6, and10.2(e) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 7, 2004 regarding the Capital One Auto Finance Trust,2004-B Class A Notes (the “Agreement”), which was filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on Form 8-K on October 12, 2004.  We are also responsible for establishing andmaintaining effective internal control over compliance with the requirementsreferred to in the preceding sentence.

An evaluation of COAF’scompliance with the requirements of Sections 2.4(a), 2.4(b), 2.4(c), 3.7, 3.8,3.9(a), 3.11, 4.2, 4.3(a), 4.5, 4.6, and 10.2(e) of the Agreement as ofDecember 31, 2004 and for the year then ended has been performed under oursupervision.  Based on this evaluation,we assert that for the year ended December 31, 2004, COAF complied in allmaterial respects with the requirements of these sections of the Agreement.

 
| Capital One Auto Finance, Inc. |                    | Capital One Auto Finance, Inc. |
|--------------------------------|-------------------------|--------------------------------|
|                           |                    |                           |   |   |
| By:                            | /s/ David R. Lawson     |                           | By: | /s/ W. Randolph Ellspermann |
| Name:                          | David R. Lawson         |                           | Name: | W. Randolph Ellspermann |
| Title:                         | President               |                           | Title: | Vice President |
|                           | Chief Executive Officer |                           |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

March 10, 2005

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: PROMULGATION OF : NO. 492

FINANCIAL REGULATIONS :

PURSUANT TO ACTS 40 AND : JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION

44 OF 2017 : DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 22nd day of December, 2017, it is Ordered, pursuant to Article V, 

Section 10(c) of the Constitution of Pennsylvania and 42 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a), that the 

Court Administrator of Pennsylvania is authorized to promulgate the attached Financial 

Regulations. The Financial Regulations are effective immediately.

To the extent that notice of proposed rulemaking may be required by Pa.R.J.A. 

No. 103(a), the immediate promulgation of the regulations is hereby found to be in the 

interests of efficient administration. See Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(a)(3).

This Order is to be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b) and is 

effective immediately.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Stacey L. Moran, Executive Vice
President & Chief Financial Officer of Suffolk Bancorp (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the
Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and (2) the
information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:
May 8, 2009

/s/ Stacey L. Moran

Stacey L. Moran

Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 2012

- 0594 Directorate Identifier: 2012

-NM

- 019

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed c ell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost T otal Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $
**On**
**- Condition Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- h ours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @ $8 5 /hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD h ave a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include speci fic requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES NO
#### GTS INDUSTRIES S.A., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant, and United States Steel Corporation and Bethlehem Steel Corportion, Defendants.

No. 03-1175.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 13, 2004.

John A. Ragosta, John J. Mangan, John A. Ragosta, Principal Attorneys, John R. Magnus, John W. Bohn, Hui Yu, of Counsel, Dewey Ballantine, Robert E. Lighthizer, James C. Hecht, Daniel L. Schneiderman, Jeffrey D. Gerrish, of Counsel, Skadden, Arps, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

Merritt R. Blakeslee, Principal Attorney, J. Kevin Horgan, Wakako O. Takatori, of Counsel, Washington, DC, Marc E. Montalbine, of Counsel, Saarbrucken, GE, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David D’Alessandris, Principal Attorney, Jeanne E. Davidson, Dean A. Pinkert, Lucius B. Lau, John D. Mclnerney, David M. *334Cohen, of Counsel, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before MICHEL, RADER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

RADER, Circuit Judge.

After an initial remand, the United States Court of International Trade affirmed the determination of the Department of Commerce that the countervailing duty rate on GTS Industries S.A.’s products should be 0 percent *ad valorem. GTS Indus. S.A. v. United States,*246 F.Supp.2d 1311 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002); *GTS Indus. S.A. v. United States,*182 F.Supp.2d 1369 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002). In a separate yet related case that was argued concurrently, this court ruled that the Court of International Trade did not err in ruling that Commerce may not employ the same-person methodology in calculating countervailing duty rate. *Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States,*367 F.3d 1339 (Fed.Cir.2004). Accordingly, this court *affirms.*
AFS

- 13

- 4 98

- E August 29, 2013

Exemption No. 10860

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 20 1 3

- 0 728

Mr. Jordan Pulaski

Parent of Sarah Pulaski

18304 Leedstown Way

Olney, MD 20832

Dear Mr. Pu laski :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our

decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption,

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By lett er received August 8 , 2013 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administrat ion (FAA)

on behalf of Sarah Pulaski for an exemption from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of Title 14, Code of

Federal Regulations (14 CFR)

. That exemp tion , if granted, would allow Sarah to exceed the

specified weight limit for an FAA

- approved child restraint system (CAReS, manufactured by

AmSafe Corporation ) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United States

(U.S.) aircraft.

The FAA has determined that good cause exis ts for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exem ption would not set a precedent and any

delay in acting on this petition would be det rimental to Sarah

.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstanc es similar in all material respects to

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA

found that numerous p eople with physical challenges had previously completed flights using

restraint systems that addressed uni que physical needs regarding safety, support, and security

in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the2

petition , if granted, would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint systems by

perso ns with disabilities.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that

—

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant.

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the

situation you present ; and

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Sarah Pulaski an exemption f rom § 121.311(b). In

addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Sarah is

aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the extent necessary

to allow her to use an FAA

- approved CRS aboard a U.S . aircraft

.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted w ith at least one of Sarah ’s parents or a caregiver accompanying her

. Sarah Pulaski may only occupy a passenger seat with no

passenger se ated behind her

. In addition, Sarah ’s parent or ca regiver must carry a copy of this

exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours

before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on September 30 , 201 8 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerel y,

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovich

Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure
**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 Sierra Health Services, Inc. (the
      Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Marc
      R.
      Briggs, 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:





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





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








/s/
      Marc R. Briggs


Marc
      R.
      Briggs


Chief
      Financial Officer


November
      6, 2007