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

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

      ( print page 59299)    
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Wednesday, September 29, 2010 at 10:30 a.m.

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.

Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, September 29, 2010 will be:

institution and settlement of injunctive actions; institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: September 23, 2010.

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-24228 Filed 9-23-10; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
#### Rufus HATTEN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 5D10-4167.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Feb. 4, 2011.

Rufus Hatten, Wewahitchka, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

*ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE*

PER CURIAM.

After receiving this Court’s affirmance of the denial of his twelfth *pro se*post-conviction motion attacking his 1994 conviction for armed robbery, Petitioner, Rufus Hatten [“Hatten”], filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking reconsideration of our “erroneous PCA”. We issued a Spencer1 show cause order directing Hat-ten to demonstrate why he should not be barred from further *pro se*challenges to his convictions and sentences in this case. Having considered Hatten’s response and finding it to be unpersuasive, we conclude that he is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further *pro se*filings. Therefore, we now prohibit Rufus Hatten from filing with this Court any further *pro se*pleadings concerning St. Johns County, Seventh Judicial Circuit Court case number CF93-1246. The clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further *pro se*filings from Hatten concerning this case. Any additional pleading regarding this case will be summarily rejected by the clerk, unless they are filed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar. *See Johnson v. State,*652 So.2d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). The clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures. *See Simpkins v. State,*909 So.2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2010).

*393Future *pro se*filings PROHIBITED; Certified Opinion FORWARDED to Department of Corrections.

GRIFFIN, ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.

1

. *State v. Spencer,*751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999).
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
CERTIFICATION
I, Joseph V. Green, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March31, 2005 of Winston Hotels, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4.  The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;
(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;
(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and
(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theCompany’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.  The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’sauditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: May 10, 2005    /s/ Joseph V. Green   Joseph V. Green
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                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 10-K of Blue Rhino
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ending July 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Mark Castaneda, 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 result of operations of the
Company.



                                                  /s/ Mark Castaneda
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Mark Castaneda
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
                                                  October 3, 2002
<PAGE>




                                                                    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 Annual Report of Land O'Lakes, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K/A for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Daniel Knutson,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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:  August 16, 2004
                                                 By  /s/ Daniel Knutson
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Daniel Knutson
                                                     Senior Vice President
                                                     and Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE ex rel. Joshua X. GRIFFIN v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2012-KH-1722.

'Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 12, 2012.

In re Griffin, Joshua X.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 81,423; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 12-00582.

Denied.
Exhibit 23.1




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








The Board of Directors


RC2 Corporation:





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-50959, 333-58037, 333-81705, 333-91158, 333-91236, 333-133238, 333-157765 and 333-167128) and Form S-3 (No. 333-165674) of RC2 Corporation of our reports dated March 2, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of RC2 Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009 and 2010, and the related consolidated statements of operations, equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, and the related financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, which reports appear in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of RC2 Corporation.








/s/ KPMG LLP





Chicago, Illinois


March 2, 2011
#### In re Lori P. MOSER.

No. 2011-B-0252.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 4, 2011.

PER CURIAM.*

11This disciplinary matter arises from a petition to revoke probation filed jointly by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) and respondent, Lori P. Moser, based upon respondent’s new violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct while on court-ordered probation imposed in *In re:*
      *240
      *Moser,*10-1777 (La.9/24/10), 44 So.3d 270 *(“Moser*I”).

UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The record in *Moser I*established that respondent falsely reported to her law firm that she attended a court hearing, and then submitted a report, billing records, and travel receipts to perpetuate the falsehood. Prior to the institution of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline, suggesting that respondent be suspended for one year and one day, fully deferred, subject to her successful completion of a two-year period of probation with conditions. We accepted the petition for consent discipline on September 24, 2010.

On January 26, 2011, the ODC received a letter from respondent self-reporting misconduct which occurred during her employment with a new law firm. Simultaneously, the ODC received a complaint against respondent from the firm. Both respondent and the firm reported that in her new position respondent “prejbilled”2 clients for work she had not yet completed, and that when confronted by her employer regarding her billing practices, respondent initially falsely denied that she had done anything wrong.

DISCUSSION

Respondent has acknowledged that she engaged in new misconduct during the period of her probation in *Moser I.*This misconduct, which is remarkably similar to the misconduct in the earlier case, involves “pre-billing” by respondent for work she had not yet completed (or, in some cases, had not yet even begun). Furthermore, when she was confronted by her employer regarding her billing practices, respondent initially lied and said she had done nothing wrong. These facts clearly support the revocation of respondent’s probation and imposition of the deferred one year and one day suspension.

Therefore, we will revoke respondent’s probation and make the previously deferred one year and one day suspension executory.

DECREE

For the reasons assigned, respondent’s probation is revoked and the previously deferred one year and one day suspension imposed in *In re: Moser,*10-1777 (La.9/24/10), 44 So.Bd 270, is hereby made immediately executory. All costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent, Lori P. Moser, Louisiana Bar Roll number 25463, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court’s judgment until paid.

Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.
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, 2004 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 13, 2004 |  | /s/ J.A. Cardwell, Sr.               
|                      |  | (J.A. Cardwell, Sr.)                 
|                      |  | President and Director               
|                      | 
|Date: August 13, 2004 |  | /s/ Edward Escudero                  
|                      |  | (Edward Escudero)                    
|                      |  | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.1



                            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 Annual Report of Unified Financial Services,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the
"Report"), I, John S. Penn, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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.


                                       /s/ John S. Penn
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       John S. Penn, Chief Executive Officer of
                                       Unified Financial Services, Inc.

                                       April 8, 2003


This certificate accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of United Microelectronics Corporation, or the Company, on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, or the Report, I, Chitung Liu, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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: April 21, 2015
|                     | 
|By:                  |  | /s/ Chitung Liu
|                     |  | Name:           |  | Chitung Liu            
|                     |  | Title:          |  | Chief Financial Officer



|* | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
|- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Twon ADAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D09-2042.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 2, 2011.

Twon Adams, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before GERSTEN, WELLS, and SUAREZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Baker v. State,*878 So.2d 1236, 1245-46 (Fla.2004); *Richardson v. State,*918 So.2d 999, 1004 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
#### In re Appeal of COMPLAINT NO. 26645.

No. 2010-OB-2459.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2011.

In re Johnson, Elfrida W.; —Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated January 7, 2011 and April 8, 2011; Office of Disciplinary Board, No. 26645.

Second application for reconsideration not considered. Judgment is final. See La.CodeCiv.P. art. 2167. No further filings shall be accepted in this matter.
#### In the Matter of Ronald Milone, Appellant, v Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonality of the Town of Easthampton, Long Island, N.Y., Respondent.

[775 NYS2d 351]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonality of the Town of Easthampton, dated May 14, 2002, which denied the petitioner’s application for a permit to construct a catwalk and fixed dock on Three Mile Harbor, the petitioner appeals from (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated December 9, 2002, and (2) a judgment of the same court entered March 18, 2003, which, upon the decision, converted the proceeding to a declaratory judgment action, declared Resolution No. 157 of 1987 of the Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonality of the Town of Easthampton, Long Island, New York, to be valid, and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, *539without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision *(see Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp.,*100 AD2d 509 [1984]); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by (1) deleting the first and second decretal paragraphs thereof, and (2) deleting the word “complaint” from the third decretal paragraph thereof and substituting therefor the word “proceeding”; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the denial of his application to construct a catwalk and fixed dock in Three Mile Harbor was not arbitrary or capricious. Easthampton Town Code § 91-4 (D) provides that no person shall erect a dock on any beach without obtaining the necessary permits “including those required by the Trustees.” The petitioner alleged that the respondent’s denial of his application constituted discriminatory treatment, submitting photographs of other docks in the area in support of his claim. However, as noted by the Supreme Court, the petitioner did not establish when these docks were constructed.

The denial of the permit is supported by evidence of environmental concerns incorporated in a comprehensive plan *(see*Easthampton Town Code § 255-5-50 [8]) and constituted a reasonable regulation of the petitioner’s riparian rights *(see Matter of Poster v Strough,*299 AD2d 127 [2002]).

This proceeding challenged the denial of the permit, not the validity of Resolution No. 157 of 1987 of the respondent, prohibiting construction of all new docks in the southerly portion of Three Mile Harbor. The resolution was not mentioned in the petition. The petitioner claimed in his reply papers that he had no opportunity to challenge its validity. However, the propriety of the denial of the permit was not contingent upon the validity of the resolution. Accordingly, the instant proceeding was in the nature of a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, not an action for a declaratory judgment *(see Town of Fishkill v Royal Dutchess Props.,*231 AD2d 511 [1996]; *Lane v Nyquist,*59 AD2d 755 [1977]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.P., Goldstein, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.