alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit
        32.2**
 **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 Quarterly Report of Puget
        Energy, Inc. and Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (the
        "Companies") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005
        as filed
        with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form
        10-Q"), I, Bertrand
        A. Valdman, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
        Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of
        the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1)  The
        Form
        10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Companies.
 
 
 
 Date:
                  November 1, 2005/s/Bertrand
                  A. ValdmanBertrand
                  A. ValdmanSenior
                  Vice President andChief
                  Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1786-DR]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-1786-DR), dated September 2, 2008, and related determinations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         September 11, 2008.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective September 11, 2008.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. E8-21937 Filed 9-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-45-01-PB

Kristyn Graham

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

July 6, 2006 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to prepare a defense. The government does not

object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to properly prepare for trial, the court will continue the trial

from July 6, 2006 to September 6, 2006. In agreeing to continue

the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. §

3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the ends of

justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the best

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00045-PB Document 12 Filed 06/28/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on August

28, 2006 at 4:45 p.m.

No further continuances. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

June 28, 2006

cc: Paul Garrity, Esq.

Alfred Rubega, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00045-PB Document 12 Filed 06/28/06 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CLIFTON D. REINOEHL,

Defendant.

4:23CR3066

ORDER

Defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (Filing No. 

21), because Defendant and defense counsel need additional time to fully review 

the discovery. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set 

forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1) Defendant’s motion to continue, (Filing No. 21), is granted.

2) Pretrial motions and briefs shall be filed on or before September 29, 

2023.

3) The conference call previously scheduled to be held on August 23, 

2023, is continued. A telephonic conference with counsel will be held 

before the undersigned magistrate judge at 10:30 a.m. on October 3, 

2023 to discuss setting any pretrial motion hearing needed, a 

change of plea hearing, or the date of the jury trial and deadlines for 

disclosing experts as required under Rule 16. Counsel for all parties 

shall use the conferencing instructions provided by the court to 

participate in the call.

4) The ends of justice served by granting the motion to continue 

outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy 

trial, and the additional time arising as a result of the granting of the 

motion, the time between today’s date and October 3, 2023 shall be 

deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the 

4:23-cr-03066-JMG-CRZ Doc # 22 Filed: 08/14/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 34
requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because although counsel 

have been duly diligent, additional time is needed to adequately 

prepare this case for trial and failing to grant additional time might 

result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1) & (h)(7). 

Failing to timely object to this order as provided under this court’s 

local rules will be deemed a waiver of any right to later claim the time 

should not have been excluded under the Speedy Trial Act.

Dated this 14th day of August, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Cheryl R. Zwart

United States Magistrate Judge

4:23-cr-03066-JMG-CRZ Doc # 22 Filed: 08/14/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 35
#### Bennie E. HUNTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DANOS & CUROLE MARINE CONTRACTORS, L.L.C.; et al., Defendants, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-30108.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 8, 2003.

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Bennie E. Hunter (Hunter) appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon). Hunter alleges that Exxon is liable for his injuries sustained while working on an offshore drilling platform that is owned in part and operated by Exxon. Hunter was employed by an independent contractor hired by Exxon to perform ongoing maintenance work on the drilling platform.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no error. Exxon did not control the activity in which Hunter was engaged when he was injured. *See Redinger v. Living, Inc.,*689 S.W.2d 415, 418 (Tex.1985). Hunter’s accident was not caused by Exxon’s negligence or hidden premises defects on the Hoover-Diana platform. *See Shell Chem. Co. v. Lamb,*493 S.W.2d 742, 746-47 (Tex.1973). Consequently, Exxon is not liable for Hunter’s injuries as a matter of law. *See Thomas v. Internorth, Inc.,*790 F.2d 1253, 1255 (5th Cir.1986).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

CORNELIES STEVENS,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, in their 

Official and Individual Capacities; SCOTT 

FRAKES, in their Official and Individual 

Capacities; DR. DEOL, in their Official and 

Individual Capacities; DR. OGDEN, in their 

Official and Individual Capacities; TERESA 

ROYER, in their Official and Individual 

Capacities; JANET ARAUCO, in their 

Official and Individual Capacities; DR. 

RALITHA JOHNSON, in their Official and 

Individual Capacities; TAGARD BOYD, in 

their Official and Individual Capacities; and 

UNKNOWN DOCTORS, NURSES, STAFF, 

in their Official and Individual Capacities;

Defendants.

8:23CV193

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On July 13, 2023, the Clerk of 

the Court sent an order to Plaintiff at his last known address and it was returned to this 

Court as undeliverable as Plaintiff has been paroled. See Filing No. 14. Plaintiff has an 

obligation to keep the Court informed of his current address at all times. See NEGenR 

1.3(e) and (g) (requiring pro se parties to adhere to local rules and inform the Court of 

address changes within 30 days). This case cannot be prosecuted in this Court if 

Plaintiff’s whereabouts remain unknown. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff must update his address within 30 days. Failure to do so will 

8:23-cv-00193-JFB-PRSE Doc # 15 Filed: 08/09/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 54
2

result in dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff. 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff 

at the address on file with the Court and to the following address: 4835 South 49th 

Street, Omaha, NE 68117.1 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to set a pro se case management 

deadline in this case using the following text: September 8, 2023: check for address.

Dated this 9th day of August, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

1 See Filing No. 1 at 7. 

8:23-cv-00193-JFB-PRSE Doc # 15 Filed: 08/09/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 55
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4019

_____________________________

MARK S. INCH, Secretary, 

Florida Department of 

Corrections,

Appellant,

v.

QUINCY WILLIAMS,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Karen Gievers, Judge.

October 30, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kristen J. Lonergan,

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Quincy Williams, pro se, Appellee.
#### Fred THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William R. BARROW et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 8212.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. *Second*Circuit.

Oct. 29, 1954.

Forrest F. Foppe, Shreveport, for appellant.

Dimick & Hamilton, Love & Rigby, Shreveport, -for appellees.

GLADNEY, Judge.

The petition of plaintiff sets forth several causes of action, but after appropriate election his judicial demands now concern only the recovery of certain realty and the improvements thereon which he alleges to be worth $5,000. His declared cause of action seeks to annul a judicial sale of the realty and its improvements, the ownership of which he claims.

The case reaches this court on appeal from a judgment in favor of respondents sustaining a plea of prescription based upon Article 3543 of the LSA-Civil Code, the case not having reached a trial on its merits.

Since this case has not been considered on its merits there is no affirmative showing of the value of the property which plaintiff seeks to recover in this suit. This court, therefore, is unable to determine whether it has or does not have jurisdiction ratione materiae.

Our Supreme Court has repeatedly declared its jurisdiction is dependent upon an affirmative showing of value as contained in the record of each case. We recognize that the same requirement is equally applicable in determining the jurisdiction of this court. Beene v. Pardue, 1953, La.App., 67 So.2d 337.

Under the circumstances, and in the interest of an orderly disposition of the appeal in this case, we think it proper to remand the cause to the District Court for the reception of competent evidence as to the value of the property which is the subject matter of the litigation.

Accordingly, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that this suit be, and it is'hereby, remanded to the Honorable the First Judicial District Court in and for the Parish' of Caddo, State of Louisiana, for the pur-*529case. pose of receiving competent evidence as to the value of the property in dispute as of the time of trial. It is further ordered that *Ck <D*¿3 <-H‘ O *tí*.2 *tí o*.2 +-1 t-c 4-J *tí o o*g S & s* 2 *&*rg 4-» 13 *tí*O 3 ^ O ^ *Ck*J 13 13 Pi £j Oh tS rt o’ O rt- i-i Ü* fl> P _ *tí tí*S
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1307 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1307

  To amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, to increase the 
     Government contribution for Federal employee health insurance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2001

  Mr. Hoyer (for himself and Mr. Wynn) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, to increase the 
     Government contribution for Federal employee health insurance.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEE 
              HEALTH INSURANCE.

    (a) Increase in the Maximum Contribution Payable by the Government 
(Expressed as a Percentage of Governmentwide Weighted Averages).--
Section 8906(b)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``72'' and inserting ``80''.
    (b) Increase in the Maximum Percentage of an Enrollee's Actual 
Subscription Charges Payable by the Government.--Section 8906(b)(2) of 
title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``75'' and 
inserting ``83''.
    (c) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect on the first day of 
the first contract year beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-1 Filed 11/06/06 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-1 Filed 11/06/06 Page 2 of 11
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-1 Filed 11/06/06 Page 3 of 11
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-1 Filed 11/06/06 Page 4 of 11
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-1 Filed 11/06/06 Page 5 of 11
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-1 Filed 11/06/06 Page 6 of 11
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-1 Filed 11/06/06 Page 7 of 11
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-1 Filed 11/06/06 Page 8 of 11
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-1 Filed 11/06/06 Page 9 of 11
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-1 Filed 11/06/06 Page 10 of 11
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-1 Filed 11/06/06 Page 11 of 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAM

Patrick Walsh

v. 05-cv-188-JD

Concord Police Department, et al

O R D E R

After a preliminary review, the Court issued an order on December 6, 2005, directing

plaintiff to file an amendment to his complaint naming the officers relating to his Fourth

Amendment Claim so that the complaint may be served within 120 days of the date of the order. 

To date, nothing has been filed. 

The Court recommends that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to

comply with the Court’s order and in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 

Case to be referred to a Judicial Officer to be dismissed unless a response is filed within ten days.

SO ORDERED.

April 11, 2006 /s/James R. Muirhead 

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Patrick Walsh, pro se

Michael Ricker, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00188-JD Document 14 Filed 04/11/06 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION****Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Rules 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) under the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended**I, Daniel P. Penberthy, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Rand Capital Corporation andRand Capital SBIC, L.P:2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this quarterly report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this quarterly report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Dated: May 10, 2007       /s/ Daniel P. Penberthy Daniel P. Penberthy, Treasurer    (Chief Financial Officer of Rand Capital    Corporation and equivalent of Chief     Financial Officer of Rand Capital SBIC, L.P.)
#### AMERICAN HISTORICAL SOC., Inc., v. GROSS. *

No. 16015.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Nov. 4, 1935.

Weiss, Yarrut & Stich and Norman R„ Tilden, all- of New Orleans, for appellant.'

Fred G. Veith, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

*

Rehearing denied Nov. 18, 1935.

*742WESTERFIELD, Judge.

The American Historical Society, Inc., a New York Corporation, entered into two contracts with the defendant, Mrs. Josiah Gross, under one of which, dated December 17, 1929, she subscribed for a copy of “Encyclopedia of American Biography” published by the plaintiff, and, under the other, she agreed to pay $150 for a copperplate engraving of her late husband, Josiah Gross, for the purpose of having it reproduced in the encyclopedia. Defendant failed to pay anything on either of the contracts, and this suit resulted.

In her answer defendant admitted owing $35 on the first contract, but denied that anything was due under the second, for the reason that, subsequent to its execution, a verbal agreement was entered into with an agent of plaintiff, whereby it was stipulated that, in consideration of the defendant furnishing a copperplate which she had in her possession, the contract would be abrogated.

There was judgment below for $35, and plaintiff has appealed.

The sole issue before us, a question of fact, is whether there was a verbal agreement as claimed by the defendant, for plaintiff denies it. It is admitted that the defendant furnished plaintiff with a copperplate engraving which had been used in a former publication carrying her husband’s portrait, but it has been proven by the testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses that the defendant’s engraving was merely used for the purpose of preparing another one of a different size, and it is conceded that the picture appearing in the publication of plaintiff is, larger than the plate furnished by defendant. There is also evidence to the, effect that proofs of the new copperplate were submitted to defendant, who did not deny their receipt. Moreover, on the reverse of the original contract dated February 11, 1930, • there is, under the date of June 18, 1931, the following legend over the defendant’s signature: “Will pay this on installments as fast as I can beginning in fall.”

An agent of the plaintiff testified that Mrs. Gross signed that indorsement after the plate had been made and delivered to her, and when he called upon her for payment of the $150.

Under the circumstances, we believe the evidence clearly preponderates in favor of the plaintiff, and conclude that there was no verbal agreement modifying or abrogating the terms of the original contract.

Consequently, for the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is amended by increasing the amount awarded plaintiff to $185, and that, as thus amended, it is affirmed. Costs of both courts to be paid by defendant.

Amended and affirmed.