alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER



Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the 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, in his capacity as an officer of Petro
Financial Corporation (the Company), that to his knowledge:



(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on the date hereof (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.



This written statement is being furnished to the SEC as an
exhibit to the Report. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.



|                      |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 12, 2005 |  | /s/ J.A. Cardwell, Sr.               
|                      |  | (J.A. Cardwell, Sr.)                 
|                      |  | President and Director               
|                      | 
|Date: August 12, 2005 |  | /s/ Edward Escudero                  
|                      |  | (Edward Escudero)                    
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
#### ALFRED R. GASKILL v. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM.

February 28, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
##### 



Exhibit 31.02 HARTFORD LIFE, INC. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ENACTED BY SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Lizabeth H. Zlatkus, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hartford Life, 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)
    [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained in
SEC Release 34-47986];(c)
    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(d)
    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. Date: February 28, 2005 By:
    
    /s/ Lizabeth H. ZlatkusLizabeth H. ZlatkusExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Joan Reagan v. Wooten & Bohannon.

(No. 6845.)

Appeal from Grayson County.

Zoll J. Woods and C. H. Smith, counsel for appellant. «

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 183. *Liquor dealer’s bond; suit on; service on dealer of notice not to sell; must be made by the delivery to him of the original or a copy of ivritten notice.*This is a suit

*194June 7, 1890.

brought by appellant, a married woman, against Wooten & Bohannon, liquor dealers, and the sureties upon their bond as liquor dealers, to recover $500 for a breach of said bond by selling intoxicating liquors to her husband, after she had notified them in writing not to do so. In her petition she alleges that through H. Chówning, deputy-sheriff of Grayson county, she notified appellees, Wooten & Bohannon, in writing, not to sell to her husband any intoxicating liquors, by said Chówning reading to said Wooten & Bohannon a written notice to that effect, signed by her. Appellees excepted specially to her petition upon the ground that it did not show that a written notice was delivered to said Wooten & Bohannon, and this exception was sustained’ by the court, and the suit was dismissed. The sufficiency of the service. of said notice is the only question made in the record. We are of opinion that the special exception was properly sustained. It is true that the statute do'es not prescribe the mode of service of the notice. It simply requires that the liquor dealer shall be “notified in writing, through the sheriff or other peace officer.” No statutory mode of the service being prescribed, the rule is that the service must be a personal one, and must be made by delivering to the person either the original notice or a copy thereof. Merely reading the notice to the person to be served therewith is not sufficient service. [Wade, Notice, §§ 1310, 1311.] ■

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                 Exhibit 11.1

                         C-CUBE MICROSYSTEMS INC.
                                     
                 COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
         Quarter and Nine Months Ended September 30, 1996 and 1995
                 (in thousands, except per share amounts)


                                  Quarter Ended            Nine Months Ended
                                   September 30,              September 30,
                              ----------------------     --------------------
                                 1996         1995          1996       1995
                              ---------    ---------     --------    --------
Net income (loss)             $(117,757)   $   8,428     $(90,330)   $ 15,757
                              =========    =========     ========    ========
Weighted average common 
   shares outstanding            34,078       32,146       33,297      31,650
Common share equivalents 
   related to stock options       n/a          3,118        n/a         3,108
                              ---------    ---------     --------    --------
Weighted average common and 
   equivalent shares             34,078       35,264       33,297      34,758
                              =========    =========     ========    ========
Net income (loss) per share      $(3.46)       $0.24       $(2.71)      $0.45
                              =========    =========     ========    ========
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
OF ADVOCAT INC.
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2009
  (a)
    
    fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
  /s/ William R. Council, IIIWilliam R. Council, IIIChief Executive Officer/s/ L. Glynn Riddle, Jr.L. Glynn Riddle, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5
<CIK>                    0000919957
<NAME>                   NTL (TRIANGLE) LLC
<MULTIPLIER>             1,000
<CURRENCY>               U.K. POUNDS

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1.4787
<CASH>                                           12,764
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    20,678
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (8,160)
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 37,352
<PP&E>                                          566,969
<DEPRECIATION>                                (128,115)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  904,462
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            89,704
<BONDS>                                         348,129
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                              8
<OTHER-SE>                                      443,907
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    904,462
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                117,291
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    45,409
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 56,085
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               26,271
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (103,376)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (102,776)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (102,776)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0


</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 Tech Report: Adaptive opticsPublished Oct. 3, 2016
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Nicholas Alder
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** -- Space will soon be a contested environment, and the U.S. Air Force is taking steps to ensure it has the best possible observation and information about what is out there.
The Air Force Tech Report is a video series that gives viewers a quick look at current technology the Air Force uses to fly, fight and win.
Related links:
-Air Force Maui Optical and Supercomputing SiteTech Report 



space 



adaptive optics 



Kirtland AFB
#### STATE ex rel. Warren RANGE v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2504.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 2011.

In re Range, Warren; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 11-81-0975; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1263.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State,*93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172. *See also State v. Cotton,*09-2397 (La.10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030.

WEIMER, J., recused.
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.                  

###### Consumer Product Safety Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 10 a.m.-11 a.m. 

# PLACE:

Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland. 

# STATUS:

Commission Meeting—Open to the Public. 

## Matter To Be Considered 

                    1.                     *Decisional Matter:*                     Final Interpretative Rule: Interpretation of Children's Product.                 

                    A live Webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at                     *http://www.cpsc.gov/​webcast.*

For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948. 

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923. 

Dated: September 21, 2010. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-24020 Filed 9-21-10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
Exhibit
23.1








CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form
S-8 No. 333-91680 and Form S-3 No. 333-134405) of Franklin Street Properties
Corp. of our reports dated February 21, 2008, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Franklin Street Properties Corp. and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Franklin Street
Properties Corp., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2007.





/s/ ERNST
& YOUNG LLP





Boston,
Massachusetts


February
21, 2008
#### Paul WILLARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D08-398.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 16, 2009.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and John Pauly, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sue-Ellen Kenny, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Paul Willard, appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct sentencing error, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). Willard contends that the trial court erred by denying his request to correct the amount of the restitution award in the final judgment following revocation of probation. We agree.

Because a motion to correct a sentencing error involves a “purely legal issue,” an appellate court’s standard of review for such a motion is de novo. *See T.L.S. v. State,*949 So.2d 290, 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (stating that the review of a juvenile’s motion to correct a sentencing error is conducted under the de novo standard of review).

“Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 allows a trial court to correct a sentencing error.” *Bell v. State,*900 So.2d 776, 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). This includes a “scrivener’s error.” A scrivener’s error occurs when a trial court fails to state the correct amount of restitution still owed to a victim in a final judgment following revocation of probation. *See Cherry v. State,*718 So.2d 294, 295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).

In this case, the trial court erred by committing a scrivener’s error via its fail*865ure to state the correct amount of restitution still owed by Willard in the final judgment following Willard’s revocation of probation. It should have corrected this sentencing error via Willard’s rule 8.800 motion. Specifically, Willard, after pleading guilty to dealing in stolen property, was, as part of his probation, ordered to pay $56,000.00 in restitution. Willard paid part, but not all, of the restitution owed during his probationary period. Upon revoking Willard’s probation, the trial court should have stated the amount still owed in restitution in the final judgment following revocation of probation — not the original amount awarded.

We, therefore, reverse the trial court’s order denying Willard’s Rule 3.800(b)(2) Motion to Correct Sentence and remand with directions for the trial court to correct the final judgment following revocation of probation to state the proper amount of restitution still owed by Willard.

*Reversed and Remanded With Directions.*

HAZOURI, DAMOORGIAN and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
This contract was a verbal contract  between the Security  Project Manager of U.
S. Satellite and the President of Downstream,  doing business as, SSI - Security
Solutions  Incorporated,  that was outlined and  confirmed in a letter sent from
SSI to the  Project  Manager  of U. S.  Satellite.  The  letter  was  dated  and
addressed to the Security Project Manager of U. S. Satellite and read:

         Please have the  equipment to be installed in the Osco Drug Stores #362
and #374, in Mansfield and Amesbury, MA, sent to our affiliate in Saugus, MA:

                             Davco Security Systems
                            Attn: Mr. Mike O'Connell
                                  #6 Webb Place
                                Saugus, MA 01906

         As agreed,  SSI will install  burglar alarm systems and CCTV monitoring
systems in each of these  stores  for the price of $9375  (nine  thousand  three
hundred  seventy five dollars) per store.  It is understood  that  USSC/American
Stores will supply all equipment to be installed  and that American  Stores will
have each store prewired, with all necessary boxes and conduit laid prior to our
installation  of these  systems.  If for some reason  American  Stores  fails to
prewire said facilities,  SSI, and/or its affiliates, will run the wire, lay the
conduit  and install the boxes for an  additional  price of $1800 (one  thousand
eight hundred  dollars) per store, for a total price of $11,175 (eleven thousand
one  hundred  seventy  five  dollars)  per  store.  SSI shall  provide  on sight
inspection of all stores, and USSC/American Stores shall pay SSI the agreed upon
amounts for its services within 30 days after the completion of the installation
of said systems. Thank you for allowing SSI to serve you.

Warmest Regards,
Barry A. Ellsworth

                                       21
News United States Air Force
 AF selects 62 for intelligence leadership positionsPublished Feb. 11, 2014
                        
                        By Debbie Gildea
                        
                        
                        Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                Sixty-two majors have been matched to specific leadership positions within the intelligence community, Air Force Personnel Center officials announced.
Candidates were considered by the fall intelligence career field development team for director of operations, operations group/squadron intelligence and detachment commander positions, said Maj. Jeff Fries, the AFPC intelligence assignments officer.
Officers are vectored at various times throughout their careers to help them develop and prepare for positions of greater responsibility, Fries said. Development teams consider every aspect of an officer's career, including demonstrated leadership, professional and career development, leadership potential, and whole person factors.
"The intelligence field is critical to national defense, and officers selected for these leadership roles must be committed, focused and ready for the opportunity and responsibility inherent in the position," Fries said. "Selection for one of these positions is a significant step in an intelligence officer's career."
For more information about leadership and developmental opportunities and other personnel issues, visit the myPers website at https://mypers.af.mil. To see the selectee list enter PSDM 14-11 in the search window,intelligence
Department of the United States Air Force LogoBiography
                  United States Air ForceThis is the official portrait of Ted Uchida.
            TED T. UCHIDAMr. Ted Uchida is the Deputy Director of Operations, Air Combat Command, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia. As the Deputy Director, he is responsible for translating the Air Force Chief of Staff, Commander, Air Combat Command, and Director of Operations strategic priorities and goals into action. He provides direction supporting A3 functions including formulating military and civilian organizational policy and exercising control over all military, civilian, and contractor personnel. As the senior A3 civilian, he leads force development for the A3 civilian workforce.
Prior to his current assignment, Mr. Uchida served on active duty. He began his military career with flight training at Mather Air Force Base, California as a student in Undergraduate Navigator Training. Following training, he served in various line, staff and leadership positions at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, Royal Air Force Upper Heyford, United Kingdom and Cannon AFB, New Mexico. Mr. Uchida commanded at the Squadron and Group level and has also served in staff assignments in United States Forces Korea, Headquarters Air Force, Arlington, Va. and ACC, JB-Langley-Eustis, Va.**EDUCATION**
1984 Bachelor of Science, Computer Science, Washington State University, Pullman
1993 United States Air Force Fighter Weapons School, Cannon Air Force Base, N.M.
1993 Master of Business Administration, Eastern New Mexico University, Portales
1996 U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kan.
2004 National Defense Fellow, Ridgeway Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pa.**ASSIGNMENTS**
1984–1996, Various Training, Staff and Leadership assignments, Mather Air Force Base, Calif., Mountain Home AFB, Idaho, Royal Air Force Upper Heyford, United Kingdom, and Cannon AFB, N.M.
1996–1998, Student, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kan.
1998–2002, Various Staff Assignments, Seoul, Republic of Korea and Headquarters Air Force, the Pentagon, Arlington, Va.
2002–2004, Commander, 37th Student Squadron, Maxwell AFB, Ala.
2004–2005, National Defense Fellow, University of Pittsburgh, Pa.
2005–2008, Deputy Commander, Air Force Operations Group, HAF, the Pentagon, Arlington, Va.
2008–2010, Commander, 20th Mission Support Group, Shaw AFB, S.C.
2010–2014, Chief, Operations Division, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Va.
2014–present, Deputy Director of Operations, ACC, Langley AFB, Va.**MAJOR AWARDS AND DECORATIONS**
Legion of Merit
Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters
Air Medal
Aerial Achievement Medal
(Current as of July 2021)Department of the Air Force Logo