alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CE** **RTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**





**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 Viridax Corporation (the “ Company ” )
      on Form
      10-KSB for the period ended April 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ” ),
      the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





1.
            The
                Report 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 operation of the
                Company.





Signature:
            Title
            Date/s/
                Richard C. Honour
            President
            August
                13, 2008Richard
                C. Honour





This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      or
      otherwise subject to liability under that section. This certification shall
      not
      be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act
      or
      Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates
      it
      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 with the electronic version of this written statement required
      by
      section 906, has been provided to the Company will be retained by the Company
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
Served: February 11,2011 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Issued by the Department of Transportation 

on the 11 th of February, 2011 

Essential Air Service at 

FORT DODGE, IOWA 

MASON CITY, IOWA 

WATERTOWN, SOUTH DAKOTA 

DOCKET 2001-10682 

DOCKET 2001-1068<1'1 

DOCKET 2001-10644 

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et se . 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION 

Fort Dodge and Mason City, Iowa By Order 2011-1-12, January 14, 2011, we requested 

proposals for EAS at Fort Dodge and Mason City, Iowa, no later than March 1, 2011. The 

current contract expires on May 31, 2011. 

Watertown, South Dakota By Order 2011-1-23, January 28,2011, we requested proposals 

for EAS at Watertown, South Dakota, no later than March 2, 2011. The current contract 

expires on July 31, 2011. 

By email dated February 10,2011, Delta Air Lines indicated it is in ongoing negotiations 

with its Delta Connection partners, and those negotiations will not be completed in time for 

it to respond to the current deadlines for proposals at the three communities, and requested 

an extension to April 5, 2011, for all three communities. 

We have decided to grant Delta's request, as the additional amount of time is not 

unreasonable. All parties must now file competitive proposals for EAS at Fort Dodge and 

Mason City, Iowa, and Watertown, South Dakota, no later than April 5, 2011. 

Dennis DeVany, Chief, 

EAS and Domestic Analysis 

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at 

http://www.regulations.gov
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 23, 2021

No. 04-21-00251-CV

Herbert Lawrence POLINARD, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

Jo Ann KARAMBIS, Margaret Comparin Karambis, Ronaldo Dunagan, Lynda C. Spence, and 

eXp Realty LLC,

Appellees

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-11887

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED. The 

appellant’s brief is due on or before October 22, 2021. 

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 23rd day of September, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of New Peoples Bankshares, Inc., certify that,
to the best of their knowledge and belief, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 New Peoples Bankshares, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is
made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as
required by law.



|                    |  |  |  |                                                                  
|------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: June 23, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ JONATHAN H. MULLINS                                          
|                    |  |  |  | Jonathan H. Mullins
President & Chief Executive Officer          
|                    |  | 
|Date: June 23, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ C. TODD ASBURY                                               
|                    |  |  |  | C. Todd Asbury Executive
Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
Marv A. HUBBARD, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-1426

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

JULY 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 9, 2018

No. 04-17-00128-CR

Joshua SANCHEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR7686

Honorable Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Rehearing En Banc is 

GRANTED. Time is extended until March 5, 2018.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 9th day of February, 2018.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Corey Mykel HEBRON, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-1657

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

AUGUST 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Elbert JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4226

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

August 21, 2018 Rehearing Denied October 8, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Marlon Desha FARR, Sr., Appellant, v. Angela WALLACE, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4890

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Early Warnings and Alerts

Filters

              - science_science(1)
              - products_publications(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(1)
              - (-)arizona(2)
              - california(37)
              - colorado(1)
              - hawaii(2)
              - idaho(1)
              - nevada(1)
              - oregon(13)
              - south dakota(1)
              - utah(1)
              - virginia(2)
              - washington(17)

## By Year

publication        August 26, 2020        Developing post-alert messaging for ShakeAlert, the earthquake early warning system for the West Coast of the United States of America

Research        October 7, 2022        Planetary Defense
Christopher Charles MCINTOSH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3776

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

October 18, 2018

Christopher Charles McIntosh, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Christopher Charles McIntosh, who was convicted of possession of a firearm by convicted felon, filed a motion for postconviction relief which raised four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the trial court's summary denial of Issues 1, 2, and 4 without further comment. However, *1197we conclude that Issue 3 is a legally sufficient claim and is not refuted by the record attachments.

In Issue 3, Appellant asserted that counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a judgment of acquittal following the close of the State's case. We conclude that he pled a cognizable and legally sufficient claim. *See* *Griffin v. State* , 101 So.3d 399, 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) ("The appellant's rule 3.850 motion is facially sufficient to assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to the extent that it alleges a failure to move for a judgment of acquittal on the charged offense of burglary with damage in excess of $1,000.00."). Additionally the court's record attachments do not refute this claim. *See* *Ortiz v. State* , 968 So.2d 681, 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) ("[T]he trial court must attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the claims in order to properly issue a summary denial."; *see also* Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(5) ("[A] copy of that portion of the files and records that conclusively shows that the defendant is entitled to no relief shall be attached to the final order."). Accordingly, we reverse the denial of Issue 3, for the trial court to hold a hearing or attach portions of the record which conclusively refute the claim.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

Roberts, Wetherell, and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.
MEMORANDUM

DATE: November 5 , 2011

SUBJECT: Interagency Review Materials Submitted for the Ferroalloys Production NESHAP

FROM: Conrad Chin, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

TO: Ferroalloys Production Project Docket (EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0895)

The draft Ferroalloys Production proposal package was transmitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 on November 7, 2011. The package
included a draft Federal Register preamble and rule and the draft Regulat ory Impact Analysis (RIA)

.

Document Submitted to Initiate E.O. 12866 review: Draft Proposal Federal Register Package. E.O. 12866 Ferroalloys 2060

- AQ11 Proposal 20111006. October 2011.

Document Submitted to Initiate E.O. 12866 review: Ferroalloys RIA 2060

- AQ11 Proposal 20111006. L. Sorrels and S. Benromdane, EPA. Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the Ferroalloys Production Source Category. September 2011.

S ix additional review versions of the draft Federal Register preamble and rule were submitted to OMB during the course of addressing OMB comments on the package. These versions of the document were prepared in “ track changes ” mode to allow reviewers to identify changes in the package since the original submittal or since the previous version. These documents were submitted on the following days: 10/28/11 ( 2 versions )

, 11/1 /11

, 11/2 /11, and 11/4 /11 ( 2 versions). Draft language for one section was submitted on 11/4/11.

The final Federal Register package and final RIA w ere submitted to OMB on 11/4/11.

The following draft table was submitted to OMB :

Interagency Review Material

-- DRAFT Summary of RTR Residual Risks

. October 21,
2011.2

The following draft report was also submitted to OMB:

Deliberative Draft Document for EPA Internal Review: Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the Ferroalloys Source Category. Prepared by EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Radiation. August 2011.

The foll owing draft technical memos were submitted upon request by OMB:

Memo from Brad Nelson, EC/R, to Conrad Chin, EPA. Surrogate for Metal Hap Emissions for the Ferroalloys Source Category. September 19, 2011.

Memo from B. Friedman, J. Harris, and B. Nelson, EC/R, to C. Chin/OAQPS/EPA. Draft Cost Impacts for the Revised NESHAP for the Ferroalloys Production Source Category. September 19, 2011. Accompanying spreadsheets were also submitted.

Memo from B. Friedman, J. Harris, and B. Nelson, EC/R, to C. Chin/OAQPS/EPA. Draft MACT Floor Analysis for the Ferro alloys Production Source Category . October 24,
2011.

Memo from Brad Nelson, EC/R, to Conrad Chin, EPA. Estimated Time Needed to Achieve Compliance with the Proposed Revisions to the MACT Standard for Ferroalloy Production Facilities. October 26, 2011

.
STATE of Louisiana v. Rayne WILLIAMS

No. 2017-K-1816

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 21, 2018

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted. The decision of the court of appeal is reversed and the case is returned to the court of appeal for a decision on the pretermitted assignment of error. When issues are raised on appeal both as to the sufficiency of the evidence and as to one or more trial errors, the reviewing court should first determine the sufficiency of the evidence. *State v. Hearold* , 603 So.2d 731, 734 (La. 1992). After the court of appeal decides the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to support defendant's conviction, it should revisit whether it is necessary to remand to the trial court to enable the resolution of defendant's remaining claim, *i.e.* , that he did not validly waive his right to a jury trial.

**REVERSED AND REMANDED**
Prentice STRINGFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2798

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed August 31, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Alexandra K. Galvin, and Edward J. Weiss, Assistant Public Defenders, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison L. Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Prentice Stringfield appeals the orders revoking his probation and sentencing him to fifteen years in prison. The trial court revoked Appellant's probation upon finding that he committed a new law violation by driving a motor vehicle while his license was suspended. Because there was no evidence that Appellant knowingly drove with a suspended or revoked license in violation of and as defined by section 322.34, Florida Statutes (2017), we find that the State failed to prove a willful, substantial violation of probation. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate Appellant's probation.

"A violation of probation must be both willful and substantial before a defendant's probation may be revoked," and "the state must establish a willful and substantial violation by the greater weight of the evidence." *Stanley v. State* , 922 So.2d 411, 413-14 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). A lower *1128court's finding of a willful and substantial violation of probation must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. *Knight v. State* , 187 So.3d 307, 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). To prove the crime of driving with a suspended license, the State must establish three elements: (1) the defendant's driver's license was suspended at the relevant time, (2) the defendant's knowledge of the license suspension, and (3) the defendant was actually driving. *Prater v. State* , 161 So.3d 489, 491 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).

While the State proved the first and third elements, it failed to prove Appellant's knowledge of the license suspension. "The element of knowledge is satisfied if the person has been previously cited ... or the person admits to knowledge of the cancellation, suspension, or revocation; or the person received notice ...." § 322.34(2), Fla. Stat. (2017). The State does not argue that Appellant was previously cited or that he admitted to knowledge. The State hypothesized that Appellant should have been notified of the suspension in one of several ways; however, it failed to offer competent, substantial evidence that notice was provided through any of the means suggested by the State. Thus, the State failed to prove Appellant's knowledge of the license suspension, and, consequently, failed to establish a new law violation. Therefore, the lower court erred in revoking Appellant's probation. We reverse and remand with instructions for the lower court to restore Appellant to probation.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

EVANDER, LAMBERT and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - science_education(1)
              - science_science(22)
              - products_data(1)
              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(32)
              - multimedia_audio(1)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(1)
              - multimedia_before_after(1)
              - multimedia_image(19)
              - multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(16)
              - multimedia_image-204460(2)
              - multimedia_video(16)
              - multimedia_video-149194(7)
              - multimedia_video-149195(8)
              - multimedia_video-149196(1)
              - documents_file(1)
              - (-)documents_file-149214(1)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - news_news-149248(2)
              - news_news-149249(2)
              - news_other_news(4)
              - connect_staff_profiles(2)
              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - (-)arizona(1)
              - south dakota(4)

## By Year

Reference Materials        October 1, 2018        Report of the IAU Working Group
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 12, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 26, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 485 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-517, K2025-515.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-29164 Filed 12-11-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 99.1


                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 Tabatha III, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q  for  the  period  ending  March 31,  2003,  (the  "Report"),
I, Robert L. Smith, Chief  Executive Officer and John D. Ballard  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 Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.



/s/ Robert L. Smith                    /s/  John Ballard
-----------------------                  -------------------
Chief Executive Officer and             Chief Financial Officer
August 8, 2003                           August 8, 2003
STATE of Louisiana v. Billy R. MEADOWS, Jr.

NO. 2018-KO-0259

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 29, 2018

Denied.
STATE EX REL. Alonzo GONZALES v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-1225

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 28, 2018

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

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. The application is also repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

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.