alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Hill International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A
(Amendment No. 1) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Irvin E. Richter, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                                      
|------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|By:                 |  | /S/    IRVIN E.
RICHTER                              
|                    |  | Irvin E. Richter Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|                   
|Date: April 6, 2010
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 01, 2020.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 01, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21D0120. CHRISTOPHER PHIPPS-MCNAIR v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

19C28260
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 Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
 Docket Nos.Electric Quarterly Reports
ER02-2001-018Bell Independent Power
ER11-4577-000BlueChip Energy LLC
ER11-3467-000Burgess Capital LLC
ER11-4584-001Caerus Energy, LLC
ER13-167-002D & L Harris and Associates
ER12-2522-000Dynamic PL, LLC
ER11-4530-000EconoPower, LLC
ER13-1132-000Energy Investments, LLC
ER11-4468-000FFC Energy, LLC
ER11-4120-000Fulcrum Power Marketing LLC
ER10-2761-000Glacial Energy Holdings
ER11-3614-005Intelligen Resources, L.P
ER12-2244-000ISO Trader, LLC
ER10-2650-000Moguai Energy LLC
ER11-4600-001NDR Energy Group, LLC
ER13-454-002People's Power & Gas, LLC
ER11-3753-001Porter-Walker LLC
ER13-327-001QC Power Strategies Fund LLC
ER13-354-001RG Steel Sparrows Point LLC
ER11-3547-002RMH Energy, LP
ER10-2544-000Smart Papers Holdings LLC
ER12-42-000Thompson River Power, LLC
ER10-2988-002Torofino Physical Trading LLC
ER11-3432-001( print page 65652)Visage Energy Corp.
ER12-2573-000Vision Power Services, LLC
ER11-4692-000Vlast LLC
ER12-1720-000
 On October 9, 2014, the Commission issued an order announcing its intent to revoke the market-based rate authority of the public utilities listed in the caption of that order, which had failed to file their required Electric Quarterly Reports.[1]
                    
                     The Commission directed those public utilities to file the required Electric Quarterly Reports within 15 days of the date of issuance of the order or face revocation of their authority to sell power at market-based rates and termination of their electric market-based rate tariffs.[2] The time period for compliance with the October 9 Order has elapsed. The above-captioned companies failed to file their delinquent Electric Quarterly Reports. The Commission hereby revokes the market-based rate authority and terminates the electric market-based rate tariffs of the companies who are named in the caption of this order. Dated: October 30, 2014. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.


# Footnotes

1.
    
                         
                        *Electric Quarterly Reports*, 149 FERC ¶ 61,023 (2014) (October 9 Order). Back to Citation
 2.
    
                         
                        *Id.*
                         at Ordering Paragraph A. Back to Citation


[FR Doc. 2014-26258 Filed 11-4-14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with thisQuarterly Report of Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2008 (the“Report”), I, Raymond K. Guba, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)       The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)       The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: February 9,  2009 | By:    | /s/RAYMOND K. GUBA                              |
|------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                         |   | **Raymond  K. Guba**                            |
|                         |   | **Executive  Vice President and**               |
|                         |   | **Chief  Financial and Administrative Officer** |

 

1

----
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 664 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 664

To amend title 49, United States Code, relating to the installation of 
              emergency locator transmitters on aircraft.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 1997

 Mr. Shays (for himself, Mrs. Kennelly of Connecticut, Mrs. Johnson of 
 Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro, and Mr. Maloney of Connecticut) introduced 
      the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 49, United States Code, relating to the installation of 
              emergency locator transmitters on aircraft.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Airplane Emergency Locator Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress makes the following findings:
            (1) On December 24, 1996, a plane piloted by Johan Schwartz 
        and Patrick Hayes disappeared near Lebanon, New Hampshire.
            (2) An extensive search was conducted by the States of New 
        Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, New York, Maine, and 
        Massachusetts, in cooperation with the Federal Government, in 
        an unsuccessful effort to locate the plane and any survivors.
            (3) The plane was not required under law to carry an 
        emergency locator transmitter.
            (4) Emergency locator transmitters have been found to be 
        very helpful in locating downed aircraft and saving lives.

SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY OF REQUIREMENT.

    Section 44712(b) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking all after ``apply to'' other than paragraph 
        (4);
            (2) by striking the semicolon at the end of paragraph (4) 
        and inserting a period; and
            (3) by moving the text of paragraph (4) after ``apply to'' 
        and striking the paragraph designation.
                                 <all>
```
9338.

#### Colquitt Lumber Company *v.*Hodges.

Decided May 16, 1918.

Complaint; from Colquitt superior court—Judge Thomas. October 13, 1917.

Hodges brought suit on an open account against Colquitt Luinber Company, for -a balance alleged to be due on three car-loads of lumber and the cost of certain inspection. He alleged that upon complaint filed by the defendant as to one of the cars of lumber, and by agreement with defendant, an inspector of the Georgra-Elorida Saw Mill Association inspected the lumber and made á report favorable to the plaintiff, and, when the defendant refused to pay, suit was brought. The defendant admitted ordering the *374lumber, but denied liability, and alleged that the car of flooring in dispute “was for their purpose entirely worthless,” and denied agreeing to be bound by the inspection. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, and, the defendant’s motion for a new trial being overruled, it excepted.

*373Bloodwobth, J.

1. The 4th and 5th grounds of the motion for a new trial are merely amplifications of the general grounds. The 6th and 7th grounds are too general, indefinite and vague for consideration by a reviewing court.

2. When considered in connection with the evidence, and in the light, of the entire charge, the excerpts quoted in, the 8th and 9th grounds of the motion are not erroneous.

3. The court did not err in “submitting to the jury the question of inspection.”

4. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment ■affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.*

*374*Shipp & Kline,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. Frank Norman, Eartsfield & Co.nger,*contra.
#### Spring-Mercer Corporation, Appellant, *v.*Henry Goodman and Others, Individually and as Copartners Doing Business as H. Goodman & Sons, Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

January 28, 1926.

Landlord and tenant — holes cut into lath and plaster in ceiling do not constitute ordinary wear and tear — tenant liable.

The defendant, a tenant occupying premises in which nine holes twelve inches square were cut through the wire lath and plaster in the ceiling, is liable to the landlord for damages, since such a condition does not constitute ordinary wear and tear.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment entered in the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District, after a trial before the court without a jury.

*Benjamin H. Wicksel,*for the appellant.

*William Weintraub,*for the respondents.

Per Curiam.

The nine holes cut through the wire lath and plastering in the ceiling, measuring approximately twelve inches by twelve inches each, do not constitute ordinary wear and tear. The tenant is hable to the landlord for such damage to the ceiling and should make reimbursement to cover the cost of repair.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed for plaintiff in the sum of eighty dollars and costs.

All concur; present, Guy, Wagner and Lydon, JJ.
9484.

#### Chatfield *v.*The State.

Decided April 2, 1918.

Indictment for misdemeanor; from Crawford superior court-judge Mathews. December 8, 1917.

*B. H. Gulverhouse, W. J. Wallace,*for plaintiff in error.

*John P. Boss, solicitor-general,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

The motion for new trial contained only the'general grounds, there was evidence' to support the verdict of guilty, and, the Verdict having the approval of the trial judge, this court will not interfere.

*■Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Barwéll, J., concur.*
9684.

#### Benjamin *v.*Elliott.

Decided October 16, 1918.

Distraint “ ’from city court of Eloyd county—Judge Nunnally. March 28, 1918.

The distress warrant, after reciting that Katherine Benjamin has made affidavit that W. B. Elliott is justly indebted to J. 'B. Benjamin in a stated sum, directs a levy on the property of the defendant to make the said sum due to J. B. Benjamin, etc. The amendment is sworn to by Katherine Benjamin, and begins“And now comes Katherine Benjamin as agent for J. B. Benjamin in the above-stated matter, and amends the affidavit of foreclosure in the distress warrant,” etc. On objection by the defendant, on the ground tha,t it .made a new party plaintiff, the court refused to allow the amendment. The court then sustained a motion to dismiss the distress warrant, on the ground that it did not follow the affidavit, “in that the affidavit alleges that W. B. Elliott is indebted to Kate Benjamin, and the warrant issued in .the name of J. B. Benjamin.” J. B. Benjamin excepted to the refusal to allow the amendment, and to the dismissal of the distress warrant.

*Maddox & Boyal■,*for plaintiff. *W. B. Mabana,*for defendant.

Luke, J.

Where a distress warrant is issued and levied) and counter-affidavit is made and bond given, based on an affidavit as follows: “Before me comes'Katherine Benjamin, Agt. J. B. Benjamin, who, being' duly sworn, deposes and says that W. B. Elliott of said county is justly indebted to deponent in the sum of one hundred and forty-seven dollars and fifty cents ($147.50), for rent of Benjamin’s farm near West Rome, which is now d,ue and unpaid,” the affidavit xhay be amended by'striking the word “deponent” and inserting in lieu thereof the word “J. B. Benjamin.” Especially is this true where the counter-affidavit admits renting the premises from J. B. Benjamin and seeks a judgment against J. B. Benjamin. The court erred in rejecting the amendment and *in thereafter dismissing the distress warrant. Park’s Ann. Code, §§ 5706, 5559; *Collins*v. *Taylor,*128 *Ga.*789 (58 S. E. 446); *Penn*v. *McGhee,*6 *Ga. App.*631 (65 S. E. 686).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Wade, C. J., 'and Jenhins, J., concur.*
#### Geo. Lyne & Co. *v.*M. S. Franceway & Nesbit.

Fraudulent Conveyances.

In this suit to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent, the following facts appear: Franceway was greatly embarrassed and conveyed a house and lot to his brother-in-law, Nesbit. The payment was witnessed at Franceway’s request by two nephews and no one else than relatives were present. Franoeway’s wife was Nesbit’s sister. Nesbit was not present when the deed was prepared and executed and it was lodged for record by the grantor, and he retained the possession of the premises and listed same for taxation, and in this proceeding he employed and paid counsel to defend. Held, that these facts warrant the conclusion that the whole transaction was nothing more than a family arrangement intended to secure to Franceway and his wife the continued enjoyment of property and a fraud upon, creditors.

APPEAL FROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

April 18, 1871.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Lindsay:

It is evident that Franceway was greatly embarassed at the time of his conveyance of the house and lot in Henderson to his. brother-in-law Nesbit. The fact that- the payment by Nesbit to him of the fourteen hundred dollars was witnessed at his request by two of their nephews, and that the subsequent payment of four hundred dollars on the mote for eight hundred was again witnessed by one of the same nephews. And that at neither of these payments any one else than their relatives were present tends strongly to the conclusion that this transaction, seemingly so fair upon its face, was nothing more than a family arrangement intended to secure to Franceway and his wife, the latter of whom is the sister of Nesbit, the continued .enjoyment of property which otherwise would have been in a very short time subjected to the payment of *271the grantor’s debts, that Eranceway did not retain nor nse the money paid to him by Nesbit is evidenced by the fact that within less than one year after the conveyance, he could not in giving his deposition, account for more than three hundred dollars of the money. It is scarcely possible that he could have forgotten what disposition he had made of the same in so short a time. These facts considered in connection with the 'further facts that Neshit was not present when the conveyance was prepared and executed and that it was lodged for record by the grantor. That he has retained possession of the premises, that the same have been listed for taxation in his name, and that this proceeding is being defended by counsel employed and paid by him, make it almost impossible to escape the conclusion that he is the real party in interest, and that Nesbit is merely holding the title to the property for his benefit. We are of opinion that the conveyance is void as to the appellants. Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to subject so much of the property conveyed as may be necessary to the satisfaction of their claim.

*Teaman, for appellant.*

*Vance, for appellee.*
**Exhibit 23.2**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Hill International, Inc. on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-114816 and 333-148156) and Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-137512, 333-141814 and 333-155332), of our report datedFebruary 12, 2010, related to the financial statements of Stanley Baker Hill, LLC as of December 31, 2009 and for the year then ended, appearing in this Annual Report of Hill International, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2009. 

/s/    Schneider Downs & Co., Inc. 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

March 12, 2010
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Andrea Lloyd","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/aclloyd\/","title":"Ham Radio in Space: Engaging with Students Worldwide for 40 Years","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"94wQ30cOiU\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/iss-research\/ham-radio-in-space-engaging-with-students-worldwide-for-40-years\/\">Ham Radio in Space: Engaging with Students Worldwide for 40 Years<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/iss-research\/ham-radio-in-space-engaging-with-students-worldwide-for-40-years\/embed\/#?secret=94wQ30cOiU\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Ham Radio in Space: Engaging with Students Worldwide for 40 Years” — NASA\" data-secret=\"94wQ30cOiU\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/07_iss067e175040_lindgren_fieldday_hamradio_sm.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
<PAGE>



                                                                      Exhibit 10


                               MATERIAL CONTRACTS


The following  material  contracts of Navistar  Financial 2002-A Owner Trust are
incorporated herein by reference:

10.1  Purchase  Agreement dated as of April 30, 2002, between Navistar Financial
      Corporation and Navistar  Financial  Retail  Receivables  Corporation,  as
      Purchaser,  with respect to Navistar  Financial  2002-A  Owner  Trust,  as
      Issuer.  Filed as Exhibit 99.1 to Navistar  Financial  Retail  Receivables
      Corporation's  Form 8-K  dated  May 3,  2002.  Filed on  Registration  No.
      333-67112.

10.2  Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 30, 2002, among Navistar
      Financial   Corporation,   as  Servicer,  and  Navistar  Financial  Retail
      Receivables  Corporation,  as Seller,  and Navistar Financial 2002-A Owner
      Trust,  as  Issuer.  Filed as Exhibit  4.1 to  Navistar  Financial  Retail
      Receivables   Corporation's   Form  8-K  dated  May  3,  2002.   Filed  on
      Registration No. 333-67112.

10.3  Trust Agreement  dated as of April 30, 2002,  between  Navistar  Financial
      Retail  Receivables  Corporation,  as  Seller,  and Chase  Manhattan  Bank
      Delaware,  as Owner  Trustee,  with respect to Navistar  Financial  2002-A
      Owner Trust. Filed as Exhibit 4.3 to Navistar Financial Retail Receivables
      Corporation's  Form 8-K  dated  May 3,  2002.  Filed on  Registration  No.
      333-67112.

10.4  Indenture dated as of April 30, 2002,  between  Navistar  Financial 2002-A
      Owner Trust and The Bank of New York, as Indenture  Trustee,  with respect
      to Navistar Financial 2002-A Owner Trust. Filed as Exhibit 4.2 to Navistar
      Financial  Retail  Receivables  Corporation's  Form 8-K dated May 3, 2002.
      Filed on Registration No. 333-67112.