alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit99(a)**

 

 

 

**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 accompanying Annual Report of ALLTEL Corporation(the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,Scott T. Ford, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct 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 result of operations of the Company. |

 
| /s/ Scott T. Ford                     |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  |
| Scott T. Ford                         |
| Chief Executive Officer and President |
| March 19, 2003                        |

 

 

----
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

   
                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR


I consent to the use in Amendment No. 2 to the Form S-1 Registration Statement
Under the Securities Act of 1933, of U.S. Automobile Acceptance SNP-IV, Inc. of
my report dated October 8, 1998, on the balance sheet of U.S. Automobile
Acceptance SNP-IV, Inc. as of September 18, 1998 and the related statement of
changes in stockholders' equity for the period from incorporation on January 2,
1998 through September 18, 1998, to the use of my opinion regarding the material
federal income tax consequences of investment in the Notes, which is an exhibit
to the Registration Statement, and to the use of my name appearing under the
heading "Experts".
    

/s/ Tyson Hopkins

Tyson Hopkins
Certified Public Accountant

   
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
October 8, 1998
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

URVE MAGGITTI,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 117 MM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4 th day of January , 202 4

, the “Petition for Writ of Prohibition

alternatively Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Eme r gency Injunction for Stay” is DENIED

.

Justice McCaffery did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
Environmental Assessment 

NIST Gaithersburg Master Plan

• NIST mission: To promote 

U.S. innovation and industrial 

competitiveness by advancing 

measurement science, 

standards, and technology in 

ways that enhance economic 

security and improve our 

quality of life

• Founded in 1901 and 

relocated from Washington, 

DC to Gaithersburg, MD 

Campus in 1960’s

• Buildings totaling 3.6 million 

gross square feet on a 

579-acre site

• Personnel count of about 

4,000 federal staff and 

affiliates

Existing Facility Condition

Who We Are

Current Issues

• Poor lab environmental controls, limiting 

current and future research

• Aging buildings and infrastructure: 73% 

of today’s assignable space is in buildings 

constructed in 1960’s

• Historic District context

• Evolving security and safety requirements

• Conference center capacity and access

• Campus circulation and parking

• Landscape maintenance and 

stormwater management

• Energy efficiency and sustainability

Goals of the Master Plan

• Establish a framework for future development 

(20-year horizon)

• Meet near and long-term needs of the campus 

in support of NIST research mission

• Integrate recommendations from recent studies

• Maintain attractive campus environment

• Respect and embrace campus historic district 

designation

• Advance NIST and Department of Commerce 

sustainable design goals
Environmental Assessment 

NIST Gaithersburg Master Plan

The selected Master Plan concept may include features from one or more of these alternatives.

Master Plan Concepts

ALTERNATIVE 1:

Extending Connections

ALTERNATIVE 2:

Creating a New Precinct
Environmental Assessment 

NIST Gaithersburg Master Plan

The selected Master Plan concept may include features from one or more of these alternatives.

Master Plan Concepts

ALTERNATIVE 3:

Capturing the Center

ALTERNATIVE 4:

New Research Emphasis
Environmental Assessment 

NIST Gaithersburg Master Plan

Get Involved:

• Your comments are important

• Public comments help to define the scope of the Master Plan and EA

• Public comments can improve the accuracy of the EA

Helpful Comments:

• Raise issues of concern early in the scoping process

• Are clear, concise, and relevant to the analysis

• Are solution oriented and provide specific examples

• Identify environmental resources of particular concern

• Suggest sources of relevant information to be considered

• Suggest additional alternatives to be considered

Provide Comments to:

NIST Master Plan Comments

National Institute of Standards and Technology

100 Bureau Drive, MS-1900

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1900

Or by email to: nistMPcomments@nist.gov

Comments must be postmarked no later than June 15, 2017

Today’s presentation will be available at: https://www.nist.gov/ofpm/nist-gaithersburg-master-plan

NIST will develop an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the environmental impacts 

associated with implementation of the selected Master Plan concept. The Draft Master Plan and 

Draft EA will be made available to the public for comment.

Providing Effective Public Comments
```

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of MAXXAM Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does
hereby certify that:

         (a) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003 of the Company (the "Report") 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.

Dated: March 29, 2004

                                          /S/          PAUL N. SCHWARTZ
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                                    Paul N. Schwartz
                                                 Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
63 of Title 18, United States Code).
```
#### C. C. Sacra *v.*F. M. Bohannon's Adm'r.

Court Commissioners — Amended Report.

An amended report of a commissioner, which is not supported by proof, and not itemized,, should be disregarded.

Court Commissioners — Confirmation of Report — Interlocutory Order.

Tbe confirmation of a master’s report as to claims against a decedent’s estate is merely interlocutory.

*549APPEAL PROM SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT.

March *4,*1874.

*Roberts, for appellant.*

*C. M. Harwood, for appellee. .*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

Sacra’s claim for $188.25 is fully proved in exact accordance with law. The verification by Sacra shows that it should be credited by $50. The amended report of the commissioner, setting up a credit of $180.96, should have been disregarded. The items are not set out, and no proof supporting said credit or any part of it, is reported.

It was not necessary that Sacra should except tO' this amended report. The confirmation of a master’s report in a case of this sort is merely interlocutory. Judgment reversed and cause remanded with instructions to allow Sacra’s claim, subject to a credit of $50.00.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sammy CHEUNG, aka Bobby Cheung, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-50324.

D.C. No. CR-99-00138-AHM-06.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 7, 2001.

Decided May 21, 2001.

Before RYMER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

The district court did not clearly err in determining that Sammy Cheung was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity involving five or more participants, that the prostitution offense involved the use of coercion, and that the prostitution offense involved victims who were fourteen and sixteen years of age at the time of the offense. Accordingly, Cheung’s sentence was properly enhanced pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines §§ 3B1.1(a), 2G1.1(b)(1) and 2G1.1(b)(2).1

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cheung’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Cheung initially asserted a number of reasons for withdrawing his plea, alleging various transgressions by his former counsel. The district court conducted a hearing and found Cheung’s counsel credible in his denial of the allegations and expressed grave doubts about the veracity of Cheung’s allegations. Moreover, at the hearing, Cheung con*523ceded that the only reason he sought to withdraw his plea was because the recommended sentence was higher than he had expected, which cannot suffice as a “fair and just” reason to withdraw the guilty plea. *United States v. Garcia,*909 F.2d 1346, 1348 (9th Cir.1990).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Because Cheung's sentence was not affected by the offense calculation as to the counts for smuggling and harboring illegal aliens, his argument regarding the application of Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.1(b)(5) & (6) is moot.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                              68
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,619
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        154
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,015
<PP&E>                                          35,040
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,359
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,578
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,909
<BONDS>                                          5,154
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,080
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,617)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,578
<SALES>                                         10,882
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,882
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,264
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 386
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,150
<INCOME-TAX>                                       815
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,335
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,335
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




CERTIFICATION
      FURNISHED 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 Patriot Scientific Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is an exhibit
      (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of the Company does hereby certify,
      pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange
      Act
      of 1934, as amended, and 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, that to his 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.





Date:
      October 10, 2007


/s/
                Clifford L. Flowers
              Clifford
                L. Flowers
              *Chief
                Financial Officer*
Exhibit 4.6

                                     FORM OF

                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       FOR
                  HARTFORD LIFE GLOBAL FUNDING TRUST 20[-]-[-]

     This Certificate of Trust of Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 20[-]-[-],
is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned, as trustee, to form a
statutory trust under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. Section 3801
et seq.) (the "Act").

          1.   NAME. The name of the statutory trust formed hereby is Hartford
Life Global Funding Trust 20[-]-[-], (the "Trust").

          2.   DELAWARE TRUSTEE. The name and business address of the trustee of
the Trust in the State of Delaware is:

               Wilmington Trust Company
               Rodney Square North, 1100 North Market Street
               Wilmington, Delaware 19890-0001
               Attention: Corporate Trust Administration

          3.   EFFECTIVE DATE. This Certificate of Trust shall be filed on [-],
20[-] with an effective date of the same date.

               IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this
Certificate of Trust in accordance with Section 3811(a) of the Act.


                                     WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, not in its
                                     individual capacity but solely as trustee


                                     By:
                                        -----------------------------
                                     Name:
                                     Title:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 10.9

This is to certify that Micro-Media Solutions, Inc. is an authorized
Hewlett-Packard Value Added Reseller

/s/ Newton Walpert
    Newton Walpert, Channel Marketing Manager
    Hewlett-Packard
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Coley L. Bailey, ChiefExecutive Officer of Mississippi Chemical Corporation (the "Registrant"),hereby certify that:

-  Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10‐K of the Registrant for theperiod ended June 30, 2004; 
-  Basedon my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report; 
-  Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 
-  TheRegistrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a‐15(e) and 15d‐15(e) for the Registrant and have: 

a.   Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period this annual report is prepared;

b.   Evaluated the effectivenessof the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

c.   Disclosedin this report any change in the Registrant's internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant's fourth fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect theRegistrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.  TheRegistrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theRegistrant's auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant's board ofdirectors:

a.  Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b.   Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

September 28, 2004                                                                       /s/Coley L. Bailey                                                                                                                                         Coley L. Bailey                                                                                                      Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

March 2, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-60567

Summary Calendar

MARIA JAQUELINA VARGAS PEREZ,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA No. A75 478 436)

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

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Petitioner Maria Jaquelina Vargas Perez, a citizen of Mexico,

petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the i mmigration judge

(“IJ”) to deny her application for cancellation of removal under

the Immigration and Nationali ty Act and voluntary departure. In

her petition, Vargas Perez argues that: (1) the BIA violated her

due process rights by issuing a summary affirmance of the IJ’s

denial; (2) the IJ violated her due process rights by failing to2

rule on her asylum application; and (3) her various counsel during

her proceedings before the IJ rendered in effective assistance by

failing to raise the asylum issue.

Respondent has filed a motion seeking dismiss al of Vargas

Perez’s instant petition for lack of jurisdiction on th e ground

that Vargas Perez failed to exhaust all of her available

administrative remedies. Our examination of the record confirms

that Vargas Perez failed to raise the se claims before the BIA on

appeal or in a motion to reopen the proceedings. Her failure to

exhaust her administrative remedies deprives us of jurisdiction to

consider the instant petition. S ee Wang v. Ashcroft

, 260 F.3d 448,

452 (5th Cir. 2001); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)(1999). Although Vargas

Perez argues that the exhaustion requirement should be waived under

the futility exception, she fails to allege facts warranting

application of that exception. S ee Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft

, 252 F.3d

383, 389 (5th Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, we grant the responde nt’s motions to waive the

requirement to file a brief and to dismiss the instant petition for

lack of jurisdiction, and we dismiss Vargas Perez’s petition and

deny all outstanding motions.

Motion to waive requirement to file brief GRANTED; motion to

dismiss GRANTED; petition DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction; all

outstanding motions DENIED.
##### 



Exhibit 32-18 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 this Form 10-K/A of Michigan Consolidated Gas Company (the Company) for the
year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, David E. Meador, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and
belief:  (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: June 17, 2005
    /s/ DAVID E. MEADORDavid E. MeadorExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of
Michigan Consolidated Gas Company A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
Specifications: 

Speed:  6000 rpm / 2000xg Capacity: 8 x1.5/2.0ml   16 x 0.2ml or 2 x PCR strips Dimensions: 4.5 (W) x 5.9 (D) x 4.5 (H) in.   11.4 (W) x 15 (D) x 11.4(H) cm Electrical: 120V to 240V, 50-60 Hz Max. Radius: 4.9cm  

- 

- 

-
Exhibit 32.1

                            MICROPAC INDUSTRIES, INC.

                             CERTICATION 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  Micropac  Industries,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending  November 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Mark  King,  President  and 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:

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/ Mark King
---------------
Mark King, President and CEO
(Principal Executive Officer)