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

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C 1350)

 

Each of the undersigned officers of Cole Credit Property Trust II, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, for purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:

 

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2008 (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

 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

|   |   |         | **Cole Credit Property Trust II, Inc.**

  |
|--------|--------|--------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |         |                                            | By:  | /s/ Christopher H. Cole |
|   |   |         |                                            | Name:  | Christopher H. Cole |
|   |   |         |                                            | Title:  | Chief Executive Officer, President, and Director (Principal Executive Officer) |
|   |   |         |                                            |   |   |
|   |   |         |                                            | By:  | /s/ D. Kirk McAllaster, Jr. |
|   |   |         |                                            | Name:  | D. Kirk McAllaster, Jr. |
|   | Date:  | May 15, 2008 |                                            | Title:  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Director (Principal Financial Officer and Accounting Officer) |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished with the Company’s 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general information language in such filing. 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5044

Scosche Industries, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Joseph T. Drennan, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Universal Capital Management, 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 periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 registrant and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 the registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  March 24, 2008



/s/ Joseph T. Drennan

Joseph T. Drennan

Principal Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Neville White, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered September 16, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the *298second degree and sentencing him to a prison term of 30 days, plus 4 years and 11 months’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

The defendant contends on appeal that the People failed to disprove the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree. Viewed in a light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, 757, *cert denied*469 US 932), the evidence adduced at trial established that defendant became angered when complainant, Angel Morales, tapped his shoe twice against defendant’s thigh as the defendant lay beneath his automobile working. Although complainant walked away upon being told by defendant that no assistance was needed on the automobile, defendant nonetheless discontinued his work, obtained a machete, and pursued the complainant. Eyewitness Sotero Garcia, who observed the ensuing events, yelled for the complainant to "watch out”, and added that the defendant was armed with a "machete”. Complainant, in response to Garcia’s warning, obtained a baseball bat from the garage of eyewitness Jean Ebbesen.

The defendant next swung the machete at complainant and complainant raised the bat to protect himself. The baseball bat was knocked from complainant’s grasp and he stumbled. The defendant then immediately struck a second blow to the side of the complainant’s head, causing a severe laceration.

We find the credible evidence in the record was therefore sufficient to support a finding that the defendant did not reasonably believe that complainant had either used or threatened the use of deadly physical force during the initial confrontation *(see,*Penal Law § 35.15 [2] [a]). Additionally, we find while the defendant would have safely retreated following the first encounter, he instead became the aggressor when he actively pursued complainant with the machete and initiated the second conflict *(see, People v Thompson,*125 AD2d 511). The defendant, accordingly, was not justified in employing deadly physical force against the complainant during the subsequent encounter *(see,*Penal Law § 35.15 [2]). Concur— Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Carro, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15140-15141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6993]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. PR95-6-000]


Utah Gas Service Co.; Notice of Petition for Rate Approval

March 16, 1995.
    Take notice that on February 28, 1995, Utah Gas Service Company 
(Utah Gas) filed pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2) of the Commission's 
regulations, a petition for rate approval requesting that the 
Commission approve as fair and equitable a maximum rate of $0.18 per 
MMBtu for transportation services performed under section 311(a)(2) of 
the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA).
    Utah Gas states that it is a local distribution company performing 
section 311 service in the State of Utah under a section 284.224 
blanket certificate granted in Docket No. CP86-188. Utah Gas proposes 
an effective date of March 1, 995.
    Pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2)(ii), if the Commission does not 
act within 150 days of the filing date, the rate will [[Page 15141]] be 
deemed to be fair and equitable and not in excess of an amount which 
interstate pipelines would be permitted to charge for similar 
transportation service. The Commission may, prior to the expiration of 
the 150-day period, extend the time for action or institute a 
proceeding to afford parties an opportunity for written comments and 
for the oral presentation of views, data, and arguments.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must 
file a motion to intervene in accordance with sections 385.211 and 
385.214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures. All 
motions must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission on or before 
March 31, 1995. The petition for rate approval is on file with the 
Commission and is available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-6993 Filed 3-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5110 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5110

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to clarify 
that the prohibition on the use of Federal education funds for certain 
   weapons does not apply to the use of such weapons for training in 
              archery, hunting, or other shooting sports.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Hunting Heritage and 
Education Act''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL EDUCATION FUNDS 
              FOR CERTAIN WEAPONS AND RELATED TRAINING.

    Section 8526(7) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 (20 U.S.C. 7906(7)) is amended by inserting ``, except that this 
paragraph shall not apply to the use of funds under this Act for 
activities carried out under programs authorized by this Act that are 
otherwise permissible under such programs and that provide students 
with educational instruction or educational enrichment activities, such 
as archery, hunting, other shooting sports, or culinary arts'' before 
the period at the end.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 26, 2023.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 5110

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to clarify 
that the prohibition on the use of Federal education funds for certain 
   weapons does not apply to the use of such weapons for training in 
              archery, hunting, or other shooting sports.
```
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6058

Apergy ESP Systems, LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 63 (Monday, April 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7997]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service


Information Collection Submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget for Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    The collection of information listed below has been submitted to 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). 
Copies of the information collection requirements and related 
explanatory material may be obtained by contacting Dennis Jones at 303-
231-3046. Comments and suggestions on the requirement should be made 
directly to the Bureau Clearance Officer at the telephone number listed 
below and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction 
Project (1010-0090), Washington, DC 20503, telephone 202-395-7340.
    Title: Royalty Rate Reduction Program for Federal Stripper Oil 
Properties.
    OMB Approval Number: 1010-0090.
    Abstract: To encourage continued production, provide an incentive 
for enhanced oil recovery projects, discourage abandonment of 
properties producing less than 15 barrels of oil each well day, and to 
reduce operator's expenses, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has 
amended regulations at 43 CFR 3103.4-1 to establish the conditions 
under which an operator of stripper oil property can obtain a reduced 
royalty rate. Operators are required to provide the royalty rate for 
each property to the Minerals Management Service, Royalty Management 
Program (RMP) to ensure that the correct rate is used in RMP financial 
and production auditing systems.
    Bureau Form Numbers: MMS-4377.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Description of Respondents: Operators of stripper oil properties on 
Federal lands.
    Estimated Completion Time: 30 minutes.
    Annual Responses: 800.
    Annual Burden Hours: 1,000.
    Bureau Clearance Officer: Arthur Quintana, (703) 787-1101.

    Dated: February 2, 1995.
Donald T. Sant,
Acting Associate Director for Royalty Management.
[FR Doc. 95-7997 Filed 3-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 63 (Monday, April 3, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 16919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8204]



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


Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

``FEDERAL REGISTER'' CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: March 27, 1995, 
60 FR 15819.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF MEETING: March 29, 1995, 10:00 
a.m.

CHANGE IN THE MEETING: The following Docket Number and Company has been 
added on the Agenda scheduled for March 29, 1995:

Item No., Docket No., and Company

E-2--ER94-1561-000, Citizens Utilities Company
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-8204 Filed 3-30-95; 3:03 pm]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6458** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. LORENZO KENYON MASON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville
. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 1:08

- cr - 00103

- MR

- 1; 1:11

- cv - 00259

- MR )

Submitted : August 28, 2014 Decided: September 2, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Lorenzo Kenyon Mason, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinio ns are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Lorenzo Kenyon Mason seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his motion seeking relief under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2012) , and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) ,
as a successive and u nauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealabilit y. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2012 ); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 3 63, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) ( 2012 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). Whe n the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mason has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we3 deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001060224
<NAME>                        Sovran Acquisition Limited Partnership
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollar
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         3,226
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,154
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               8,910
<PP&E>                                         519,876
<DEPRECIATION>                                 24,187
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 504,599
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          217,489
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     266,990
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   504,599
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               19,451
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,617
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               4,638
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,341
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                6,263
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            6,263
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   6,263
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .47
        



</TABLE>