alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 2497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1264]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Science Board Task Force on Image-Based Automatic Target 
Recognition; Meeting

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Image-Based Automatic 
Target Recognition will meet in closed session on February 14-15, 1996 
at the Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting the Task 
Force will assess the ability of automatic/aided target recognition 
technology and systems to support important military missions, 
principally in the near- and mid-term. The Task Force should 
concentrate on those technologies and systems that use imagery (EO, IR 
or radar) as their primary input medium.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1988)), it has 
been determined that this DSB Task Force meeting concerns matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b(c)(1) (1988), and that accordingly this 
meeting will be closed to the public.

    Dated: January 22, 1996.
L. M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 96-1264 Filed 1-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Miguel Luzunaris, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Bernstein, J.), rendered March 2, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from *8 Vs*to 25 years and from *2 Vs*to 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s issues on appeal are unpreserved and, in any event, without merit.

The court’s justification instruction to the jury to evaluate the reasonableness of defendant’s belief that physical force was required in view of whether a reasonable person *would*have held the same belief as compared to *could*have held the same belief, had de minimis effect and could not have led the jury astray *(see, People v Goetz,*68 NY2d 96). The charge properly emphasized the requirement of "reasonableness” under the circumstances confronting defendant, and allowed the jury to consider defendant’s knowledge of the decedent’s prior violent behavior and/or the defendant’s state of mind.

The prosecutor’s comment during cross-examination sug*297gesting that defendant fabricated his story after having the "luxury of being able to see all the witnesses” was improper *(see, People v Jackson,*143 AD2d 363; *People v Bolden,*82 AD2d 757), but immediately obviated by adequate curative instructions.

While it is misconduct for a prosecutor to use inflammatory language to appeal to the sympathies and fears of the jury *(see, People v Nash,*49 AD2d 827; *People v Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105), the remark regarding the impact on society of an acquittal, in context, went to the factual weaknesses in defendant’s justification defense.

The sentence imposed was not unduly harsh or excessive. Convicted of the lesser included charge of manslaughter in the first degree, defendant, at the time of arrest, was in possession of a loaded weapon and 26 hollow-point bullets, indicating that he was not a peaceful man. In view of these circumstances, the trial court’s maximum sentence was not an abuse of discretion *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302). Concur—Ross, J. P., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 on Form 10-Q of AvizaTechnology, Inc. (the “Company”), the undersigned Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,to his knowledge:

(1)                                  the accompanying report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the quarter ended December 29, 2006, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended; and

(2)                                  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults      of operations of the Companyfor the periods presented therein.

Date:February 5, 2007
|   | By:    | /s/ Patrick C. O’Connor                         |   |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Patrick C. O’Connor                             |
|   |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
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





The
undersigned,Thomas W. Colligan, the Chief Executive Officer,Chief Financial Officer,Chairman of the Board of Directors and Treasurer ofYACHT FINDERS, INC.
(the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.  The Company's Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarter endedJune 30,
2010(the “Report”), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and





2.  Information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operation of theCompany.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement
this29thday ofJuly,
2010.





/s/ Thomas W. ColliganThomas W. ColliganChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toYACHT FINDERS, INC. and will be retained byYACHT FINDERS,
INC.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 21485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11658]



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

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[WY-989-1050-00-P]


Filing of Plats of Survey; Wyoming

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The plats of survey of the following described lands are 
scheduled to be officially filed in the Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, 
Wyoming, thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this publication.

Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming

T. 52 N., R. 64 W., accepted April 23, 1996
T. 12 N., R. 114 W., accepted April 23, 1996
T. 13 N., R. 114 W., accepted April 23, 1996
T. 13 N., R. 115 W., accepted April 23, 1996
T. 44 N., R. 118 W., accepted May 1, 1996

Sixth Principal Meridian, Nebraska

T. 26 N., R. 9 E., accepted March 22, 1996
T. 27 N., R. 8 E., accepted April 23, 1996

    If protests against a survey, as shown on any of the above plats, 
are received prior to the official filing, the filing will be stayed 
pending consideration of the protest(s) and or appeal(s). A plat will 
not be officially filed until after disposition of protest(s) and or 
appeal(s).
    These plans will be placed in the open files of the Wyoming State 
Office, Bureau of Land Management, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, 
Wyoming, and will be available to the public as a matter of information 
only. Copies of the plats will be made available upon request and 
prepayment of the reproduction fee of $1.10 per copy.
    A person or party who wishes to protest a survey must file with the 
State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming, a notice 
of protest prior to thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this 
publication. If the protest notice did not include a statement of 
reasons for the protest, the protestants shall file such a statement 
with the State Department within thirty (30) calendar days after the 
notice of protest was filed.
    The above-listed plats represent dependent resurveys, subdivision 
of sections.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 
1828, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003.

    Dated: May 2, 1996.
Jerry L. Messick,
Acting Chief, Cadastral Survey Group.
[FR Doc. 96-11658 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-M
EXHIBIT 32.7

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

UCFH II FINANCE, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the quarterly report of UCFH II Finance, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 1, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John R.
Sprouls 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 14, 2006



By:

/s/ JOHN R. SPROULSJohn R. SproulsPresident (Principal Executive Officer)
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-60370

Conference Calendar

__________________

ALAN MCFADDEN,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

EDWARD HARGETT, SUPERINTENDENT,

MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY;

CALBERT TAYLOR; SANDRA BECK; 

JAMES BEASLEY; MARGAN COLEMAN;

JOHN SEGAR; WILLIE MAE FULLER,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:94CV227-S-O

- - - - - - - - - -

August 23, 1995

Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Alan McFadden appeals the judgment of the district court

dismissing his civil rights action with prejudice for failure to

comply with the district court's order to exhaust administrative

remedies. McFadden argues that the district court erred because
No. 95-60370

-2-

he cannot obtain relief through the Mississippi Department of

Corrections's (MDOC) Administrative Remedy Program, which does

not provide for monetary damages.

 The exhaustion requirement of the Civil Rights of

Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, applies

to a prisoner's suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking both monetary

and injunctive relief. Arvie v. Stalder, 53 F.3d 702, 706 (5th

Cir. 1995). Because McFadden requested injunctive and

declaratory relief and money damages, the district court properly

dismissed his claim for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies.

 McFadden challenges the Administrative Remedy Program at

MDOC. He contends that the program is a product of a criminal

conspiracy and does not meet the minimum requirements of CRIPA.

 McFadden's issue is barred by the doctrine of collateral

estoppel. See McDuffie v. Estelle, 935 F.2d 682, 685 (5th Cir.

1991). McFadden raised the identical issue previously in

McFadden v. Welch, No. 95-60151 at 2 (5th Cir. June 15, 1995)

(unpublished). The court held that the plaintiffs, who were

unnamed class members in Gates v. Collier, GC71-6-S-D, could not

collaterally challenge the Gates order certifying the

Administrative Remedy Program. The issue was critical in that

action, and claim preclusion is appropriate in this case.

 McFadden is warned that future attempts to litigate the same

issue will result in the imposition of sanctions. See Smith v.

McCleod, 946 F.2d 417, 418 (5th Cir. 1991); Jackson v. Carpenter,

921 F.2d 68, 69 (5th Cir. 1991).
No. 95-60370

-3-

 AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 91 (Thursday, May 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21169-21170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11580]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-216-000]


New England Power Company, et al.; Notice of Complaint

May 3, 1996.
    Take notice that on April 25, 1996, New England Power Company (New 
England) filed a complaint against Algonquin Gas Transmission Company 
(Algonquin). New England states that Algonquin currently designs its 
rates for New England under Rate Schedule X-38 on an incremental basis.
    New England states that the incremental pricing is wrong for X-38. 
The facilities underlying Rate Schedule X-38 are an integrated part of 
Algonquin's system and provide significant, demonstrable benefits to 
all customers on the system. The only just

[[Page 21170]]

and reasonable rate design for X-38 is roll-in Algonquin's other 
transportation services.
    New England states that the proper rate design does not differ 
whether the X-38 facilities are evaluated under the Battle Creek test--
the test in effect when New England made substantial financial 
commitments in contracting for X-38 service--or under the Commission's 
recent Pricing Policy Statement.
    New England requests that the Commission direct Algonquin to 
restate its X-38 rates on a rolled-in basis. New England asserts that 
if the Commission does not summarily require Algonquin to roll-in X-38, 
it should set this matter for an expedited hearing. New England states 
that at present, New England pays unreasonable rates while other 
customers free-ride on the system-wide benefits provided by X-38. 
Because New England is raising this roll-in issue under Section 5 of 
the Natural Gas Act, relief may be prospective only.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said complaint should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 214 and 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure 18 CFR 385.214, 385.211. All such motions or protests 
should be filed on or before May 31, 1996. Protests will be considered 
by the Commission in determining the appropriate actions 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. Answers to this complaint shall be due on or 
before May 31, 1996.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-11580 Filed 5-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Section
1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of New Oriental Energy & Chemical Corp.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed
with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Donglai Li Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:




(1)  The Report fully
complies with the 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 22, 2010/s/ Donglai LiDonglai
      LiChief
      Financial Officer





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.
**TKP** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 1 9
- 03 4 6 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DAVID THOMAS WEISBARTH, II ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30
-day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including August 19 , 2020 , within which to prepare, serve, and file the State’s response .

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 13 2020

07/13/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0346
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Michael D. Queen, 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:  December 20, 2011



/s/ Michael D. Queen

Michael D. Queen

Principal Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.6

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UNIVERSAL CITY FLORIDA HOLDING CO. II

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the quarterly report of Universal City Florida Holding Co. II (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 28, 2009 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tracey L. Stockwell, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: August 6, 2009



> By:
> 
>                                                                                         
> 
>                                                                                         /s/ Tracey L. StockwellTracey L. StockwellPrincipal Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**MMC
      ENERGY, INC.**


**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 MMC Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Denis Gagnon, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the 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.





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





May
                14, 2008/s/
                Denis GagnonDenis
                GagnonChief
                Financial Officer




The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of this Report or
      as a
      separate disclosure document.