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



EXHIBIT 13.2


Grupo TMM, S.A.


SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER






| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for
    the year ended December 31, 2004, to which this statement
    is filed as an exhibit (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.                                                                                                            



| |                            
| | ---------------------------
| | /s/ Juan Fernandez Galeazzi
| |                            
| | Juan Fernandez Galeazzi    
| | Chief Financial Officer
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals2949131-MAY-201209:42 AM
##### 



Exhibit 32

Certification of Periodic Financial Report
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, each of the undersigned officers of Stratos
Lightwave, Inc. (the Company) certifies that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2003 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

|                          |  |                                            
|------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|Dated: September 12, 2003 |  | /s/ James W. McGinley                      
|                          |  |                                            
|                          |  | James W. McGinley                          
|                          |  | President and Chief Executive Officer      
|                         
|                          |  | /s/ David A. Slack                         
|                          |  |                                            
|Dated: September 12, 2003 |  | David A. Slack                             
|                          |  | Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief
|                          |  | Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 201 (Monday, October 19, 1998)]
[Corrections]
[Page 55918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X98-41019]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-106177-97]
RIN 1545-AV18


Qualified State Tuition Programs

Correction

    In proposed rule document 98-22465 beginning on page 45019 in the 
issue of Monday, August 24, 1998, make the following correction:


Sec. 1.529-1  [Corrected]

    On page 45026, in the second column, in Sec. 1.529-1(c), in 
definition paragraph (2)(i), in the eighth line, ``20 U.S.C. 108711'' 
should read ``20 U.S.C. 1087ll''.
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 14, 2023. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00899-CV

DANIELA VILLARREAL, Appellant

V.

EGNA LEON AND JULIO LEON, Appellees 

On Appeal from the 334th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2022-40942

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal from an order signed October 28, 2022. 

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con 

Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When orders do not dispose of all pending 

parties and claims, the orders remain interlocutory and unappealable until final 

judgment is rendered unless a statutory exception applies. Bally Total Fitness Corp. 

v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 

S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
2

The order at issue dismissed with prejudice all of the claims appellant 

requested be dismissed pursuant to Section 27.003 of the Texas Civil Practice & 

Remedies Code, part of the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act. Appellant also 

requested attorney’s fees, costs, and sanctions pursuant to the TCPA. See Tex. Civ. 

Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 27.009(a). However, instead of awarding such relief to 

appellant, the order scheduled a hearing for a future date on that request. There has 

been no indication that appellant’s request has been resolved as of the date of this 

order, thus there is no appealable final judgment. See Farm Bureau Cnty. Mut. Ins. 

Co. v. Rogers, 455 S.W.3d 161, 164 (Tex. 2015) (per curiam). Moreover, the only 

statute which approaches authorizing an interlocutory appeal here solely authorizes 

appeals from the “deni[al of] a motion to dismiss filed under Section 27.003” of the 

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 

§ 51.014(a)(12). However, the trial court granted appellant’s request to dismiss all 

claims she wanted dismissed under the TCPA, and such an order is not normally 

appealable. See Fleming & Assocs., L.L.P. v. Kirklin, 479 S.W.3d 458, 460 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. denied). The fact that the trial court did not 

immediately rule on appellant’s request for monetary relief did not make the 

interlocutory order the “deni[al of] a motion to dismiss” that would be immediately 

appealable. See Eureka Holdings Acquisitions, L.P. v. Marshall Apartments LLC, 

597 S.W.3d 921, 924 (Tex. App.—Austin 2020, pet. denied); Leniek v. Evolution 

Well Servs., LLC, No. 14-18-00954-CV, 2019 WL 438825, at *2 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 2, 2019, no pet.). Accordingly, the trial court’s order is 

an interlocutory one not subject to immediate appeal.

On January 26, 2023, notification was transmitted to the parties that the appeal 

was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction without further notice unless any 

party demonstrated this court had jurisdiction on or before February 6, 2023. See
3

Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a), 42.3(a). No response was filed.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Wilson.
# C_2020398EN.01000301.xml

| 23.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9559 — Telefónica/Prosegur/Prosegur Alarmas España)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 398/03)

On 19 February 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9559. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9559. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
STATE of Louisiana v. Jarret Jean MCCASLAND

NO. 2017-K-0823

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 21, 2018

Reconsideration denied.

JOHNSON, C J., would grant reconsideration and consider the merits.

HUGHES, J., would grant reconsideration and consider the merits.

CRICHTON, J., would grant reconsideration and consider the merits.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Report (as defined under the preceding Certification By Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, Allen Goodman, Chief Financial and Principal Accounting Officer of Price
Asset Management, Inc., the general partner of The Price Fund I, L.P. (the Partnership), 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 Partnership.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By: /s/ Allen GoodmanAllen GoodmanChief Financial and Principal Accounting OfficerMarch 30, 2004




E-4
STATE EX REL. Sean GRIFFIN v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-1144

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 8, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator shows no lower court error.

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 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.
Jaison BARBOZA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1002

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed August 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
### Gormas, Michael 

## (Osn From: Sent: To: Cherise Lister <nordichouse@live.com> Friday, November 14, 2014 2:17PM EAS (OSn Subject: Essential Air Service To Petersburg Alaska Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:

November 14, 2014 Follow up Completed

Mr. Kevin Schlemmer, Chief, EAS Division Office ofAviation Analysis U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJerseyAvenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590
Re: Continuation ofAlaska Airlines' Essential Air Service at Cordova, Gustavus, Petersburg, Wrangell, and Yakutat, Alaska, Docket OST-1998-4899 Dear Mr. Schlemmer : This letter is to express strong supportforthe selection ofAlaska Airlines to continue to provide essential air service to our community. Alaska's service connects SoutheastAlaska passengersto one or more majorcommunities of interest, with single-plane service to Anchorage, Juneau, Ketchikan or Seattle. From these hubs, our community can access the airline's extensive route system and benefit from its marketing relationships with othercarriers. The passenger and cargo aircraft, which Alaska Airlines proposes to continue using on this route, provides freight, mail and cargo capacitythat other carriers simply cannot provide. Further, Alaska Airlines aircraft are equipped with Required Navigation Performance Technology, which enables the airline to reliably access the airport during inclementweather, thus reducing diversions and cancellations and, in turn, enabling people and products to dependably reach the community. Simply put, Alaska Airlines' service is critical to the economicwell being ofourcommunity and 

## ! supporttheir application to provide Essential Air Service to SoutheastAlaska. Sincerely, Cherise Lister Nordic House Bed and Breakfast, Inc. 907-772-3620

1
Maria Del Carmen GARCIA, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Candido GARCIA, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2553

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

MAY 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
IIB 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5391 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to enhance 

certain duties of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5391 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Gains in Global Nu3 clear Detection Architecture Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DUTIES OF THE DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION 

5 OFFICE. 

6 Section 1902 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

7 (6 U.S.C. 592) is amended— 

8 (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as sub9 section (c); and 

10 (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol11 lowing new subsection: 

12 ‘‘(b) IMPLEMENTATION.—In carrying out paragraph 

13 (6) of subsection (a), the Director of the Domestic Nuclear 

14 Detection Office shall— 

15 ‘‘(1) develop and maintain documentation, such 

16 as a technology roadmap and strategy, that— 

17 ‘‘(A) provides information on how the Of18 fice’s research investments align with— 

19 ‘‘(i) gaps in the enhanced global nu20 clear detection architecture, as developed 

21 pursuant to paragraph (4) of such sub22 section; and 

23 ‘‘(ii) research challenges identified by 

24 the Director; and 

25 ‘‘(B) defines in detail how the Office will 

26 address such research challenges; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 5391 RFS 

1 ‘‘(2) document the rational for prioritizing and 

2 selecting research topics; and 

3 ‘‘(3) develop a systematic approach, which may 

4 include annual metrics and periodic qualitative eval5 uations, for evaluating how the outcomes of the Of6 fice’s individual research projects collectively con7 tribute to addressing the Office’s research chal8 lenges.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 27, 

2016. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS