alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 5, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 30260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14095]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board, Public 
Meeting

    The U.S. Small Business Administration National Small Business 
Development Center Advisory Board will hold a public meeting on Sunday, 
June 17, 2001, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PST. at the Doubletree Hotel 
Seattle Airport, Seattle, Washington, Cascade Room 1 to discuss such 
matters as may be presented by members, staff of the U.S. Small 
Business Administration or others present. Anyone wishing to make an 
oral presentation to the Board must contact Ellen Thrasher, in writing 
by letter or fax no later than June 6, 2001 in order to be included on 
the agenda. For further information, please write or call Ellen 
Thrasher, Designated Federal Officer U. S. Small Business 
Administration, 409 Third Street, SW, Fourth Floor, Washington, DC 
20416. Telephone number (202) 205-6817, FAX (202) 205-7727.

Nancyellen Gentile,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-14095 Filed 6-4-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-U
#### STATE v. JONES

No. 436A98

Case below: 130 N.C.App. 758

Motion by Attorney General to dismiss appeal allowed 3 December 1998.
Exhibit 32.2

SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of New Ulm Telecom, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nancy Blankenhagen, 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, to
my 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: August 8, 2007 | By | /s/ Nancy Blankenhagen
|                     |    |                       
|                     |    |                        | Nancy
 Blankenhagen    
|                     |    |                        | Chief Financial Officer

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stuart Ebanks, Appellant.

[874 NYS2d 111]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Judith S. Lieb, J.), rendered January 11, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of aggravated criminal contempt, criminal contempt in the first degree (two counts), and stalking in the third degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 32/s to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting the People to introduce evidence of uncharged crimes that were probative of defendant’s motive and intent and provided background information explaining the sequence of events and the relationship between defendant and the victim *(see e.g. People v Steinberg,*170 AD2d 50, 72-74 [1991], *affd*79 NY2d 673 [1992]). Unlike evidence of general criminal propensity, evidence that a particular victim was the focus of a defendant’s continuing aggression may be highly relevant *(see People v Bierenbaum,*301 AD2d 119, 150 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 626 [2003], *cert denied*540 US 821 [2003]), and the People “were not bound to stop after presenting minimum evidence” *(People v Alvino,*71 NY2d 233, 245 [1987]). The probative value of this evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect, which was minimized by the court’s suitable limiting instructions. Defendant’s *463constitutional argument is both unpreserved and without merit *(see People v Pettaway,*30 AD3d 257 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 816 [2006]).

Defendant’s argument, including his constitutional claim, that the court should have provided a remedy, beyond the inquiry it conducted, for his assertion that the police improperly destroyed allegedly exculpatory evidence is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Thomas C. Prendergast, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Heritage Property Investment Trust, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a15(e) and 15d-15(e) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for
the registrant, and we have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors;



|Date: November 9, 2005 |  | /s/THOMAS C. PRENDERGASTThomas C. Prendergast
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
|---------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
Order entered May 29, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00506
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF C .V.L., A CHILD On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District Court

Dallas C ounty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. JC
- 17
- 01086
- W



### O RDER
T he reporter’s record in this accelerated appeal was due May 9, 2019. When it was not filed, we notified court reporter Martha Grant by postcard dated May 10, 2019 that it was past due and directed her to file the reporter’s record within ten days. On May 20, 2019, Ms. Grant notified the Court that a substitute court reporter, Kristin McDowell, sat for her on this case. We order court reporter Kristin McDowell to file, WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER , the reporter’s record in this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 35.1(b).
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Andrea Martin Lane, Presiding Judge, 304th Judicial District Court; Martha Grant, official court reporter, 30 4th Judicial District Court; court reporter Kristin McDowell, P.O. Box 530473, Grand Prairie, TX 75053 (Kris10mcdowell@sbcglobal.net); and counsel for all parties. /s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ecoblu Products, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steve Conboy, President 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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/ Steve Conboy


Steve Conboy


President


Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer





February 22, 2011
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 440 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 2000

SOFR USD Interest Rate Swap - FRBNY

DESCRIPTION

A cash settled swap based upon the price published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for the 

interest rate specified in Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract period is equal to the arithmetic average of the Secured Overnight 

Financing Rate Data for each day that it is determined during the contract period.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract quantity shall be Notional US Dollars. Each contract shall be valued as the Notional US 

Dollars times the difference between the fixed price and Floating Price A.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 50 years.

PRICING AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in fixed interest rates. The minimum price fluctuation shall be 0.0001%. 

The minimum price increment will be 0.00001%. There shall be no maximum price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last calendar day of the contract period.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination 

of posting for a contract period, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price 

will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract period. Any other settlement calculations

or terms, Including but not limited to; Effective Dates, Business Dates and Business Date Roll 

Conventions for Accruals and Payments, Reset Dates, Day Count Fraction, Compounding, 

Notional, Notional Amortization Type, Floating Rate Payment Dates shall be as specified by the 

parties.
jfourtlj Court of Sppeattf

Antonio, Ctwas

January 22. 2014

No. 04-13-00398-CR

Mario Arteaga.

Appellant

v.

The Slate of Texas,

Appellee

Trial Court Case No. 12.273CR

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the record and briefs in this appeal and has determined that oral

argument will not significantly aid it in determining the legal and factual issues presented in the

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 39.S. Therefore, all requests for oral argument are denied, and the

cause is advanced for ON BRIEFS submission on February 19. 2014. to the following panel;

Chief Justice Stone, Justice Angelini. and Justice Chapa. All parlies will be notified of the

Court's decision in this appeal in accordance with TEX. R. API1. P. 4S.

Hither party may file motion requesting the Court to reconsider its determination that

oral argument will not significantly aid the Court in determining the legal and factual issues

presented in the appeal. See TEX. R. Al'l'. P. 39.8. Such motion should be filed within ten (10)

days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED on January 22. 2014.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF.

court on this January 22. 2014.

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

have hereunto set my hand and a/fixed the seal of the said

of
#### In the Matter of Angela Labita, Also Known as Angelica J. Labita, Deceased. Katherine D’Alessandro, Appellant; Nicolina D. Hayhurst, Respondent. Katherine D’Alessandro, Appellant, v Midway Nursing Home, Respondent.

Submitted March 29, 2010;

decided May 6, 2010

Motion for reargument denied [see 14 NY3d 749 (2010)].
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification ofPrincipal Financial Officer**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Valentis, Inc.(the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

(i)            the accompanyingAnnual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended June 30,2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

(ii)        theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: September 28, 2006 |     | /s/ JOSEPH A.  MARKEY                          |
|------------------------------------|----------|------------------------------------------------|
|                               |     | Joseph A. Markey                               |
|                               | * * | *Vice President of Finance and Administration* |
|                               | * * | *(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

VAMSIDHAR VURIMINDI, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

JUDGE DIANA ANHALT AND COURT OF 

COMMON PLEAS, PHILADELPHIA, 

 Respondents 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 133 EM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

 AND NOW, this 10th day of December, 2015, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED, and the 

Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.
Exhibit 31.1


CERTIFICATION





I, Fred
Zolla, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Vemics, Inc;





2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;





3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4. The
small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:





a.  designed
such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this quarterly report is being prepared;





b.
 evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures as of the end of the period (the “Evaluation Date”); and





c.  
presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;





5. The
small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, of internal control over financial reporting, to the
small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business
issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):





a. all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and





b. any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting.





6.  The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.








/s/ Fred
Zolla


Fred
Zolla


President
and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal
Executive Officer)


Date:
November 19,
2008
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1044

Natural Gas Basis Swap - Tenn Z6 200L - Platts Inside FERC

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the mathematical result of subtracting the price of the 

NYMEX Henry Hub Natural Gas futures contract, as defined in Floating Price B, from the monthly 

price published by Platts Inside FERC for the location specified in Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the Platts Inside FERC Tenn Z6 200L

published price for the corresponding contract month.

FLOATING PRICE B

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the NYMEX Henry Hub Natural Gas 

futures contract final settlement price for the corresponding contract month on the last trading 

day for that contract month.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract unit shall be MMBtus (million British thermal units). Each shall be valued as the 

contract quantity multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods.

PRICES AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars and cents per MMBtu. The minimum price fluctuation shall 

be $0.001 per MMBtu. The minimum price increment will be $0.0001. There shall be no 

maximum price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day prior to the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination 

of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price 

will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract month.
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Applix, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
David C. Mahoney, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
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/ David C. Mahoney
                                         -------------------------------------
Dated:       March 31, 2003               David C. Mahoney
                                          Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Applix, Inc. and will be retained by Applix, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2010057EN.01001201.xml

| 9.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/12

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer (1)

1

Case COMP/39.316 — GDF gas foreclosure

The draft Decision presented to the Commission under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) relates to the alleged foreclosure of downstream supply markets for natural gas in France by Gaz de France Suez S.A. and its subsidiaries GRTgaz S.A. and Elengy S.A. (hereafter collectively referred to as ‘GDF’). In particular, the foreclosure would be the result of long-term reservation of most of France's import capacity; the procedures for allocating import capacity in the new Fos Cavaou liquefied natural gas terminal; and the strategic limitation of investments in additional import capacity in the Montoir de Bretagne liquefied natural gas terminal.

2

The Commission opened proceedings on 16 May 2008 and adopted a preliminary assessment as referred to in Article 9(1) on 22 June 2009. On 24 June 2009, GDF submitted commitments under Article 9(1) in order to address the Commission's competition concerns. The commitments essentially consist in a significant release of long-term import capacity and in the obligation to bring GDF's reservations below 50 % of total long-term import capacity at the latest in 2014 and to keep them at that level for ten years.

On 9 July 2009, the Commission published a notice pursuant to Article 27(4), summarizing the concerns and the commitments and inviting interested third parties to transmit observations on this notification within two months of its publication. The Commission received 23 responses from interested third parties. On 21 September 2009, the Commission informed GDF orally of the result of the market test. GDF did not request for any written access to the responses to the market test. On 21 October 2009, GDF submitted a revised proposal of commitments.

The Commission has now come to the conclusion that, in view of the commitments proposed by GDF, and without prejudice to Article 9(2), the proceedings should be brought to an end.

On 26 October 2009, GDF submitted a declaration to the Commission that it has received sufficient access to the information it considered necessary to propose commitments in order to meet the concerns expressed by the Commission.

No additional queries or submissions have been made to the Hearing Officer in connection with the present case by GDF or any third parties.

In the light of the above, I consider that the right to be heard has been respected in this case.

Brussels, 17 November 2009.

Karen WILLIAMS

---

(1)  Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision (2001/462/EC, ECSC) of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21).

1

(2)  In the following, all Articles and chapters referred to are those of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

2

---