alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 76 (Thursday, April 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9752]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-234-000]


El Paso Natural Gas Co.; Notice of Tariff Filing

April 14, 1995.
    Take notice that on April 12, 1995, El Paso Natural Gas Company (El 
Paso), tendered for filing pursuant to Part 154 of the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission Regulations Under the Natural Gas Act and in 
compliance with the Commission's Final Rule (Order No. 577) issued 
March 29, 1995 at Docket No. RM95-5-000, certain revised tariff sheets 
to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1-A.
    El Paso states that the tendered tariff sheets reflect the 
Commission's revision of Sec. 284.243(h) of its Regulations and 
provides for the extension of the exception which allows shippers to 
release capacity without having to comply with the Commission's advance 
posting and bidding requirements to one full calendar month. El Paso 
states that its tariff currently provides for the Commission's 
clarification of the exemptions of the posting and bidding requirements 
for transactions at the maximum rate.
    El Paso states that the tendered tariff sheets also revise the 
posting of roll-overs of exempted releases by changing the period in 
which shippers that released capacity at less than the maximum rate may 
re-release capacity to the same shipper at less than the maximum rate 
from 30 days to 28 days.
    El Paso, pursuant to Section 154.51 of the Commission's 
Regulations, respectfully requests waiver of the notice requirement of 
Sec. 154.22 of said Regulations to permit the tendered tariff sheets to 
become effective on May 4, 1995, which is the date Order No. 577 will 
become effective.
    El Paso states that copies of the filing were served upon all of El 
Paso's interstate pipeline system transportation customers and 
interested state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Secs. 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests should be filed on 
or before April 21, 1995. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-9752 Filed 4-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



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

The undersigned, Remy Kozak, the Chief Executive Officer of Power Air Corporation, and Donald M. Prest, the Chief Financial Officer of Power Air Corporation, each 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 their knowledge, the Report on Form 10-QSB of Power Air Corporation, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Power Air Corporation.

Date:  February 14, 2007.



| | /s/"Remy Kozak"
__________________________________                                            
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Remy Kozak
President, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Executive Officer and a director     
| | /s/" Donald M. Prest "
__________________________________                                     
| | Donald M. Prest
Secretary, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Power Air Corporation and will be retained by Power Air Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Robert P. CARTER, Appellant, v. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

No. 96-SC-535-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Aug. 29, 1996.

*ORDER GRANTING REINSTATEMENT TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW*

Robert P. Carter, of Louisa, filed an application in this Court for reinstatement to the practice of law in this Commonwealth pursuant to SCR 3.510 and has complied with all of the requirements of the rules pertaining to reinstatement. The Board of Governors of the Kentucky Bar Association has recommended to this Court that Carter’s application for reinstatement be granted. He is now-deceased.

It is therefore ordered that Robert P. Carter be, and is hereby reinstated to the practice of law in this Commonwealth. Any costs incurred by the Kentucky Bar Association in processing shall be waived.

All concur.

/s/ Robert F. Stephens Chief Justice
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Anthony Jurak certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Jurak Corporation
World Wide, 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 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 registrant's 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 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.

By /s/ Anthony Jurak

Anthony Jurak

Date: January 17, 2007 Chairman of the Board, Director
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 83 (Monday, April 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 18761]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10487]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 96-044]


NASA Advisory Council, Life and Microgravity Sciences and 
Applications Advisory Committee, Aerospace Medicine and Occupational 
Health Advisory Subcommittee; Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 
92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
announces a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council, Life and Microgravity 
Sciences and Applications Advisory Committee, Aerospace Medicine and 
Occupational Health Advisory Subcommittee.

DATES: May 10, 1996, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Washington Room, Atlanta Hilton and Towers Hotel, 255 
Courtland Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30303.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Sam L. Pool, Code SD, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Houston, TX 77058, 713-483-7109.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be closed to the public on 
Friday, May 10, 1996, from 4:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in accordance with 5 
U.S.C. 522b(c)(6), to allow for discussion on qualifications of 
individuals being considered for membership to the Committee. The 
remainder of the meeting will be open to the public up to the seating 
capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as follows:

--Review of NASA Responses to Findings and Recommendations from the 
Previous Meeting of September 27-28, 1995
--Overview of Plans for the National Space Biomedical Institute
--Medical Operations Update STS and Mir Missions
--Overview of Crew Health Care System and Human Research Facility
--Status of the Brody Committee--Best Clinical Practices
--Discussion of Action Items
--Summary of Findings and Recommendations

    It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to 
accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors 
will be requested to a sign a visitor's register.

    Dated: April 19, 1996.
Leslie M. Nolan,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-10487 Filed 4-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
Exhibit 32.1

# CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Martin Tuchman, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Interpool, Inc. (the
Company), pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby
certify as follows:

|(1) | The report of the Company on Form 10-K/A for the period ended
December 31, 2006 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 such report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Certification this 30
day of April, 2007.

| | /s/ Martin Tuchman
Martin Tuchman
Chairman of the Board, Chief
Executive Officer, President,
Chief Operating Officer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 to Interpool, Inc. and will be
retained by Interpool, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### BOLIVAR INSULATION COMPANY, Appellant, v. R.K. SHIRLEY, d/b/a R.K. Shirley Drywall, Respondent.

No. WD 40952.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 16, 1989.

Kerry D. Douglas, Bolivar, for appellant.

Gregory D. Williams, Sunrise Beach, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, C.J., and LOWENSTEIN and GAITAN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from a judgment in court-tried case on a petition on account.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5305 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1157 West Mission Avenue in Escondido, California, as the ‘‘Captain 

E. Royce Williams Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 29, 2023 

Mr. ISSA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1157 West Mission Avenue in Escondido, California, as the ‘‘Captain E. Royce Williams Post Office 

Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CAPTAIN E. ROYCE WILLIAMS POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 1157 West Mission Avenue in 

7 Escondido, California, shall be known and designated as 

8 the ‘‘Captain E. Royce Williams Post Office Building’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5305 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Captain E. Royce 

5 Williams Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. George C. HULSE, Appellant.

No. WD 41046.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 1, 1989.

*557Kathy Matthews, Kansas City, for appellant.

Albert A. Riederer, Pros. Atty., Robert Frager, Asst. Pros. Atty., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before SHANGLER, P.J., and TURNAGE and KENNEDY, JJ.

KENNEDY, Judge.

Defendant-appellant George C. Hulse was convicted of driving a motor vehicle on the highways of this state while his driver’s license was suspended, in violation of section 302.321, RSMo 1986. He was sentenced to 90 days in jail. The severity of the punishment was no doubt caused by defendant's driving record which included four convictions of driving while intoxicated and two convictions of driving while his license was suspended.

Hulse does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to show that his Missouri driver’s license had been suspended and had not been reinstated.

Defendant’s first point is that Jackson County deputy sheriff George B. Fields’ stop of defendant as he drove along the highway was not supported by probable cause, hence that any evidence gained by the officer by the unlawful stop of the defendant was inadmissible.

Deputy Fields’ testimony was that he observed Hulse operating a motor vehicle in Jackson County, Missouri, on December 18, 1987, driving west on Lone Jack/Lee’s Summit Road. Asked what directed his attention to the vehicle, Deputy Fields testified: “He was approaching me, as I saw him. I am familiar with the subject and knew that he was not permitted to be driving.”

None of the evidence gained through Deputy Fields’ stop of the defendant was used to convict defendant Hulse. All of defendant’s offense was in driving along the highway while his driver’s license was under suspension. Deputy Fields observed that and testified to it. This all took place before the stop, and Deputy Fields secured no further evidence by the stop. The state’s case against the defendant was made up of the deputy’s observations made before he stopped the defendant, along with the defendant’s Department of Revenue driving record which showed the suspension.

Defendant’s next point is that his State of Kansas operator’s license entitled him to drive upon Missouri’s highways, and that his conviction of driving while his driver’s license is under suspension constitutes a denial by Missouri of the full faith and credit to be accorded to the “Public Acts, Records and Judicial Proceedings” of another state under article IV, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States. This contention, supported by the citation of no cases, has been rejected in *State v. Bray,*774 So.2d 555 (Mo.App.1989), handed down contemporaneously herewith.

Judgment affirmed.

All concur.
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Angelo
J. Di Lorenzo, Vice Chairman and Chief Executive 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 requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  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
14, 2008





/s/ Angelo J. Di
Lorenzo


Angelo J.
Di Lorenzo


Vice
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-24-00078-CV

Amanda Estrada

v.

Loan Ranger Capital Investments, LLC

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No 2 of Travis County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C-1-CV-23-004132

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. No costs are assessed, as appellant filed an 

affidavit of inability to pay costs. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 21, 2024
Exhibit 10.27.1





Exhibit 10.27.1




Termination of Split Dollar Agreement and Endorsement




This Termination of Split Dollar Agreement and Endorsement (this “Agreement”) by and
between The Cortland Savings and Banking Company, an Ohio-chartered bank (the “Bank”), and Marlene
Lenio, Vice President of the Bank (the “Executive”), is made and entered into and shall be
effective as of this 12th day of February, 2010.



Whereas, the Bank and the Executive entered into a Second Amended Split Dollar
Agreement and Endorsement dated as of December 3, 2008 (the “Split Dollar Agreement and
Endorsement”),



Whereas, the Bank and the Executive desire now to terminate the Split Dollar
Agreement and Endorsement, and



Whereas, the Bank and the Executive intend that from and after the effective date of
this Agreement the Split Dollar Agreement and Endorsement and the associated Split Dollar Policy
Endorsement or Endorsements shall be void and shall have no further force or effect.



Now Therefore, in consideration of these premises and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Bank and the
Executive hereby agree as follows.



1. Termination of the Split Dollar Agreement and Endorsement. Effective as of the date first
written above, the Split Dollar Agreement and Endorsement is terminated and shall have no further
force or effect. Neither the Executive nor any beneficiary of the Executive shall make any claim
for benefits under the Split Dollar Agreement and Endorsement. Neither the Executive nor any
beneficiary of the Executive shall make any claim for benefits under the Split Dollar Policy
Endorsement or Endorsements appended to or associated with the Split Dollar Agreement and
Endorsement. The Split Dollar Policy Endorsement or Endorsements shall be void and of no further
force or effect as of the effective date of this Agreement. The Executive acknowledges and agrees
that the Bank shall be fully discharged from all liabilities or obligations under the Split Dollar
Agreement and Endorsement and the associated Split Dollar Policy Endorsement or Endorsements as of
the effective date of this Agreement.



2. Applicable Law. This Agreement and all rights hereunder shall be governed by the laws of
the State of Ohio, except to the extent preempted by the laws of the United States of America.



3. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the Bank and the
Executive concerning the subject matter.



In Witness Whereof, the Executive and a duly authorized officer of the Bank have
executed this Termination of Split Dollar Agreement and Endorsement as of the date first written
above.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Executive	 	The Cortland Savings and Banking Company
	 
	/s/ Marlene Lenio
 


	 	By:
	 	/s/ James Gasior
 

	 	 
	Marlene Lenio

	 	
	 	Its: President
Exhibit 13.2



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 20-F for the
fiscal year ended November 30, 2004 of Stolt Offshore S.A. (the Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) on the date hereof (the Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Stuart Jackson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, that:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: May 31, 2005 |  | /s/    STUART
JACKSON                 
|                   |  | Stuart Jackson Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Stolt Offshore S.A. and will be retained by Stolt Offshore S.A. and furnished to the Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Kristian JOHNSON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 68063.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 16, 1996.

Dave Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact which are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).