alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fero Industries INC., a Colorado corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Kyle Schlosser, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company do hereby certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003 (18 U.S.C.  1350), that to their knowledge:  (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 result of operations of the Company.  /s/ Kyle Schlosser Kyle Schlosser, President and Chief Executive Officer  /s/ Leigh-Ann Squire Leigh-Ann Squire, Secretary/Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer  May
16, 2010  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Capital Resource Alliance Inc. and will be retained by Capital Resource Alliance Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 this Amendment No. 3 to the Annual Report of Republic Airways Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bryan K. Bedford, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(i) the Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the end of, and for the period covered by, the Report.








By:/s/ Bryan K. BedfordChairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and PresidentJanuary 14, 2015
# C_2010116EN.01000301.xml

| 5.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/3

---

Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities

2010/C 116/02

Pursuant to the second indent of Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities (2) are hereby amended as follows:

1

2

Page 14

Page 14

After ‘General’ the following paragraph and one picture is inserted before ‘Additional Note 2(C)’:

‘Additional Note 1.A(d) and Additional Note 1.A(e)

For the purposes of Additional Notes 1.A(d) and 1.A(e) to this chapter (read in conjunction with Additional Note 1.C to this chapter), whilst determining whether the conditions of the minimum and maximum number of ribs are fulfilled, only the ribs, whole or cut, directly attached to the vertebral column shall be counted.

According to this explanation, the diagram below shows an example of a bovine forequarter which would comply with Additional Notes 1.A(d) and 1.A(e) read in conjunction with Additional Note 1.C to this chapter.

| FOREQUARTER | HINDQUARTER |
| --- | --- |
| ’ |

FOREQUARTER

HINDQUARTER

Image

---

(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ C 133, 30.5.2008, p. 1.

2

---
#### Nives Montero, Respondent, v Carlos Montero, Appellant.

Submitted November 7, 2011;

decided January 17, 2012

Reported below, 85 AD3d 986; 2011 NY Slip Op 83116CU).

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying reargument or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the action within the *879meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
No. 512

#### Gianatasio *v.*Kaplan et al.

Jurisdictional statement . submitted January 11, 1932.

Decided January 18, 1932.

*Mr. Copal Mintz*for appellant.

*Messrs. Arthur J. W. Hilly, J. Joseph Lilly,*and *Frederick A. Keck*for appellees.

*Per Curiam:*

The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. *Atkin*v. *Kansas,*191 U. S. 207; *Heim*v. *McCall,*239 U. S. 175.
# CE2012377EN.01018801.xml

| 7.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 377/188 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 377/188

---

Tuesday 10 May 2011Agreement on the protection and sustainable development of the Prespa Park area ***

P7_TA(2011)0191

European Parliament legislative resolution of 10 May 2011 on the draft Council decision concerning the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Prespa Park Area (16581/2010 – C7-0007/2011 – 2010/0300(NLE))

2012/C 377 E/30

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (16581/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (16581/2010),

| — | having regard to the draft Agreement on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Prespa Park Area (16581/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Agreement on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Prespa Park Area (16581/2010),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 192(1) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0007/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 192(1) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0007/2011),

| — | having regard to Rules 81 and 90(8) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 81 and 90(8) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0078/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0078/2011),

| 1. | Consents to conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Consents to conclusion of the agreement;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States, of Albania and of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States, of Albania and of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

---
#### In Re: Yueseyuan CRUEL, Petitioner.

No. 10-1976.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 19, 2010.

Decided: Oct. 26, 2010.

Yueseyuan Cruel, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Yueseyuan Cruel petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Although we find that mandamus relief is not warranted because the delay is not unreasonable, we deny the mandamus petition without prejudice to the filing of another mandamus petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the *794materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, the undersigned officer of ALLEGHENY ENERGY
SUPPLY COMPANY, LLC (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's
knowledge, that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                             /s/ Paul J. Evanson
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Paul J. Evanson
September 24, 2003                           Principal Executive Officer
# Exhibit 32.1

# OFFICER CERTIFICATION

# PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Department 56, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
October 1, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to such officers knowledge:

|(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 10, 2005                                  
|      | Susan E. Engel                                     
|      | Chairwoman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

|      |                                      
|----- | -------------------------------------
|     
|     
|Date: | November 10, 2005                    
|      | Timothy J. Schugel                   
|      | Chief Financial and Operating Officer

---
ROCKIES
REGION 2007 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP


(A West
Virginia Limited Partnership)








Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of the Registrant on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2008, as amended by Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-Q/A as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), the undersigned certify 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
      Registrant.








/s/
      Richard W. McCullough
            
            November
      14, 2008Richard
      W. McCulloughChief
      Executive Officer
              Petroleum
      Development Corporation,
              Managing
      General Partner of the Registrant





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 the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided the Registrant and will be retained by the
Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mikal Smith, Appellant.

Submitted February 14, 2012;

decided February 16, 2012

Reported below, 87 AD3d 920.

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Anthony STONE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-3528.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 8, 2010.

J. Patten Brown, III, Law Offices of Pat Brown, Bloomfield, CT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Geoffrey M. Stone, Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut (David B. Fein, United States Attorney, on the brief, Raymond F. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel), Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, Hartford, CT, for Appellee.

PRESENT: WALKER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judges, JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge.1

1

. The Honorable John G. Koeltl, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant appeals, in particular, the District Court’s September 18, 2007 ruling and October 9, 2008 amended ruling, denying his motion to suppress evidence found by the police during a search of his home in the presence of his estranged wife Tay-arisha Stone (“Mrs. Stone”). Defendant claims that Mrs. Stone lacked actual authority to consent to a search of the premises under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that she did not voluntarily consent to a search of the premises. Defendant also claims that the District Court erred in determining that he did not meet his burden of showing that the search warrant affidavit contained a false statement or omission that was made knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this action.

In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we review the district court’s conclusions of law *de novo*and its findings of fact for clear error, taking those facts in the light most favorable to the government. *See, e.g.,*United *United States v. Lucky,*569 F.3d 101, 105-106 (2d Cir.2009); *United States v. Watson,*404 F.3d 163, 166 (2d Cir.2005).

Following *de novo*review, we deny defendant’s claims for substantially the rea*685sons stated by the District Court in its well-reasoned Ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, *see United States v. Stone,*3:05-cr-281 (EBB), 2007 WL 2727532 (D.Conn. Sept. 18, 2007). Specifically, we hold that the District Court properly concluded that Mrs. Stone had authority to consent, and voluntarily consented, to the morning search of the residence because she had actual authority to consent to the search of the family home and because the officers reasonably believed that she had authority to consent to the search. We find, moreover, that there was more than ample probable cause to support the search warrant; that the District Court properly concluded that the search warrant affidavit did not contain a false statement that was made knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth; and that defendant did not show that any alleged false statement was material to a finding of probable cause.

*CONCLUSION*

We have considered all of defendant’s claims and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
# CE2013153EN.01016902.xml

| 31.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 153/169 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 153/169

---

Tuesday 15 November 2011EU-Georgia common aviation area agreement ***

P7_TA(2011)0481

European Parliament legislative resolution of 15 November 2011 on the draft decision of the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on the conclusion of the Common Aviation Area Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and Georgia (09185/2011 – C7-0124/2011 – 2010/0186(NLE))

2013/C 153 E/28

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft decision of the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council (09185/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft decision of the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council (09185/2011),

| — | having regard to the draft Common Aviation Area Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part (14370/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Common Aviation Area Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part (14370/2010),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 100(2), Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), and Article 218(8), first subparagraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0124/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 100(2), Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), and Article 218(8), first subparagraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0124/2011),

| — | having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A7-0344/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A7-0344/2011),

| 1. | Consents to conclusion of the Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Consents to conclusion of the Agreement;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Georgia. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Georgia.

---
#### Larry E. Knight, Inc., et al., Respondents, v QBE Insurance Corp. et al., Appellants.

[875 NYS2d 61]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Shulman, J.), entered July 7, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, so much of the motion as sought dismissal of the first, second, third, and fifth causes of action granted, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

In this declaratory judgment action, there are issues of fact as to whether plaintiffs’ injuries in the underlying action were caused by negligence on the part of defendant JEM Erectors, which in turn generate issues of fact as to JEM’s duty to indemnify the corporate Knight plaintiff under their subcontract *(see Carboy v Cauldwell-Wingate Co., Inc.,*43 AD3d 261 [2007]; *Medina v New York El. Co.,*250 AD2d 656 [1998]). Plaintiffs’ argument that the indemnity provision in the Knight-JEM subcontract imports with it a duty to insure fails, because the duty to indemnify is distinct from, and does not inherently contain, a duty to insure *(see Kinney v Lisk Co.,*76 NY2d 215, 218 [1990]). Since the subcontract contains no obligation on the part of JEM to procure insurance for Knight, Knight cannot be deemed an additional insured under the additional-insured endorsement to JEM’s commercial general liability policy *(see International Couriers Corp. v North Riv. Ins. Co.,*44 AD3d 568 [2007]; *Stainless, Inc. v Employers Fire Ins. Co.,*69 AD2d 27, 32-34 [1979], *affd*49 NY2d 924 [1980]). Because defendants demonstrably have no duty to procure insurance for Knight, plaintiffs’ claim for breach of the duty to procure insurance must also fail.

There is no basis in this record for interfering with the motion court’s discretionary decision to decline to dismiss plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief in the fourth cause of action, in light of the prior pendency of claims asserted in the context of the underlying personal injury action *(see Whitney v Whitney,*57 NY2d 731 [1982]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Gonzalez, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ. *[See*2008 NY Slip Op 31942(U).]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 2.19

To: Bank

                      JAMES HARDIE INTERNATIONAL FINANCE BV
            364 DAY STANDBY LOAN AGREEMENT - FORM OF EXTENSION LETTER

We refer to the Loan Agreement (the "Agreement") dated ___________, as novated
and amended on ____________, made between ourselves, James Hardie International
Finance BV as borrower, and James Hardie Industries NV as Guarantor, and
yourselves as Lender.

We request that the Final Maturity Date in respect of the Agreement be extended
to a date 364 days after the current Review Date under the Agreement. The
extended Final Maturity Date would be 30 April 2005.

The current Review Date is 30 April 2004. The next Review Date is 30 October
2004.

Signed for and on behalf of JAMES HARDIE INTERNATIONAL FINANCE BV

By /s/ Folkert H Zwinkels (Responsible Officer) Dated ____________________
   ----------------------

Signed for JAMES HARDIE INDUSTRIES NV

By /s/ Folkert H Zwinkels (Responsible Officer) Dated ____________________
   ----------------------

We agree to extend our Final Maturity Date in respect of the Facility to 30
April 2005.

Signed for Lender by:

__________________ (Responsible Officer)             Dated:__________________
<Page>



         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Post-Effective
Amendment No. 30 to the Registration Statement on Form N-4 (No. 033-19421)
(the "Registration Statement") of our report dated March 31, 2005, relating
to the consolidated financial statements of Fortis Benefits Insurance Company
(as of September 6, 2005, known as Union Security Insurance Company), which
appears in such Registration Statement. We also consent to the reference to
us under the heading "Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm" in such
Registration Statement.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
October 21, 2005