alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1







                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Bull Run
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2002
(the "Quarterly Report"), I, Robert S. Prather, Jr., President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date:    January 10, 2003           /s/ ROBERT S. PRATHER, JR.
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Robert S. Prather, Jr.
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer





                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Bull Run
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2002
(the "Quarterly Report"), I, Frederick J. Erickson, Vice President - Finance and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date:    January 10, 2003           /s/ FREDERICK J. ERICKSON
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Frederick J. Erickson
                                    Vice President - Finance and Chief Financial
                                    Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         644,375
<SECURITIES>                                 1,973,800
<RECEIVABLES>                                  441,198
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,326,287
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,447,335
<PP&E>                                       1,201,826
<DEPRECIATION>                                 735,307
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,924,052
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          978,464
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                     9,630,713
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,924,052
<SALES>                                        626,564
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               671,691
<CGS>                                          349,034
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  872,453
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,865
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (210,627)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (210,627)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (210,627)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Patronelli v. Patronelli

Case below: 360 N.C. 628

No. 055A06-2

Def-Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing

Denied 01/25/07
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; MRI Myocardial Biopsy Forceps.                    

*Date:*                         February 13, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7180, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Tony L Creazzo, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7180, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-435-0725,                         *creazzotl@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

      ( print page 2947)    
Dated: January 14, 2015.

Michelle Trout, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-00818 Filed 1-20-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Cubic Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, as C.F.O., certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: March 15, 2009

 
| Signature: | /s/ Larry Badgley     |   |
|------------|-----------------------|--------|
|       | Larry Badgley, C.F.O. |   |

 

----
##### 



Exhibit 99.1 Imperial Oil Limited
111 St Clair Avenue West
Toronto, Ontario
Canada M5W 1K3
    
    News Release
 Imperial Oil relocating head office from Toronto to Calgary Toronto, September 29, 2004 Imperial Oil Limited today announced it will be
relocating its head office from Toronto to Calgary. Detailed planning will now
begin with completion of the move expected by August 2005. There are approximately 3000 Imperial Oil employees in Ontario, with about 1500
located in Toronto. It is anticipated that up to one third of the Toronto
population will be subject to relocation. Further details will be determined
after the project plan has been completed. This move will enable Imperial to strengthen its focus on the major
opportunities for the company, and help meet Canadas growing energy needs
said Tim Hearn, chairman, president and chief executive officer. He added, In
addition, having our corporate offices in one location will assist with overall
organizational effectiveness. Imperial is one of the largest producers of crude oil in Canada and a major
producer of natural gas. The company is the largest refiner and marketer of
petroleum products  sold primarily under the Esso brand name  and a major
producer of petrochemicals. - 30 - For further information: Richard OFarrell
Public Affairs
(416) 968-4875
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 Veracity Management Global, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2012 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Marc L. Baker, Acting 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, as amended; 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/ Marc L. Baker





Marc L. Baker


Acting Chief Financial Officer


Dated: September 24, 2012





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Veracity Management Global, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Julie B. Hewitt et al., Respondents, v Charles L. Maytum et al., Appellants.

[974 NYS2d 883]

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County (James H. Dillon, J.), entered December 5, 2012 in a personal injury action. The order denied in part the motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present — Scudder, EJ., Peradotto, Garni, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 5D 2 3

- 425 LT Case No. 10

- 2016

- CF

- 493

_____________________________
D EREK C OLLINS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

3.850 appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County

. Don H. Lester , Judge

. Ryan Edward McFarland, of Kent & McFarland, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

A shley Moody, Attorney General, and Damaris E. Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

January 23, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.

E ISNAUGLE , B OATWRIGHT , and M AC I VER , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Milton Palaguachi, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 911]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered October 22, 2004, convicting him of assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and menacing in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Upon the appeal from the judgment, the duration of the orders of protection issued at the time of sentencing will be reviewed as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

Ordered that on the appeal from the judgment, so much of the orders of protection as directed that they remain in effect until October 22, 2011 are vacated, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new determination of the durations of the orders of protection, taking into account the defendant’s jail-time credit; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

As the People correctly concede, the Supreme Court should have taken into account the defendant’s jail-time credit *(see People v Nieves,*2 NY3d 310, 311 [2004]) in determining the durations of the orders of protection *(see People v Ortiz,*25 *768AD3d 811 [2006]). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new determination of the durations of the order of protection, taking into account the defendant’s jail-time credit.

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit *(see People v Harper,*32 AD3d 16 [2006], *affd*7 NY3d 882 [2006]; *People v Payton,*31 AD3d 580 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 850 [2006]). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
#### Costancio Restauro BOLO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-74003.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 23, 2006.

Benjamin V. Chen, Benjamin V. Chen, AAL, LLLC, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.

*791District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Honolulu, HI, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Joan E. Smiley, Esq., Richard M. Evans, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GRABER, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Costancio Restauro Bolo, native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for a waiver of inadmissibility under § 212(c) of the former Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”). Bolo was placed in removal proceedings after he was convicted in 1994 under Hawaii Revised Statute § 707-732(l)(b) for third-degree sexual assault of a minor under the age of fourteen. The IJ found that the offense constituted a “crime of moral turpitude” and that it qualified as an aggravated felony under INA § 101(a)(43)(A). After weighing the testimony of Bolo’s family and friends, the IJ denied discretionary waiver of inadmissibility under INA § 212(c), specifically commenting upon the fact that Bolo refused to admit the wrongfulness of his actions.

On appeal, Bolo asks that we revisit the I J’s denial of his application for a waiver of inadmissibility and grant relief. However, we lack jurisdiction to review this exercise of the IJ’s discretion. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B).

Bolo also alleges that the IJ and BIA violated his constitutional right to due process. Under the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, we are no longer barred from hearing constitutional claims or questions of law. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Nevertheless, Bolo failed to exhaust his procedural due process claims on direct appeal to the BIA, and we are therefore precluded from reaching the merits. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). The petition for review is DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

(IMPERIAL OIL LOGO)

|                                                               |  |             
|-------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------
|Imperial Oil Limited
237  4th Avenue S.W.
Calgary, AB T2P 0H6 |  | News Release

Revised cost and schedule received for Syncrude Stage 3 expansion project

For Immediate Release
Calgary, March 4, 2004 Imperial Oil Resources, along with the other owners
of Syncrude Canada, was advised today of a revised cost and schedule outlook
for the Stage 3 expansion of the Syncrude oil-sands mining operation, located
near Fort McMurray, Alberta.

Syncrudes Stage 3 expansion includes the development of the Aurora 2 mine and
the addition of a third, 100,000-barrel per day fluid coker. Stage 3 also
includes facilities to improve the quality of Syncrudes total site production,
which will be increased to approximately 350,000 barrels a day on project
completion. Total costs for the Stage 3 expansion are now estimated to be
approximately $7.8 billion (Cdn.). The projected increases are not related to
the Aurora 2 mine, which was commissioned in late 2003.

The revised outlook was developed after a thorough review of the project
commissioned by Syncrude Canada following execution performance declines in the
latter part of 2003. A previous cost estimate of the Stage 3 project,
conducted in late 2002 when detailed engineering on the upgrader expansion
(UE1) was 50-percent complete, suggested a total cost for the project in the
range of $5.7 billion  about $5 billion for UE1 and $700 million for the
Aurora 2 mine. Start-up of UE1 is now targeted to occur in mid-2006, later
than the planned mid-2005 date.

Like the other Syncrude owner companies, Imperial is concerned about the
escalating costs and schedule delay. We are prepared to support Syncrude in
whatever way we can to address these issues such that Syncrude Canada can
continue to move forward to a successful completion and start-up of this
project, said K.C. Williams, president and CEO of Imperial Oil Resources.

The Syncrude Project is a joint venture operated by Syncrude Canada Ltd. and
25-percent owned by Imperial. The other owners are Canadian Oil Sands Limited
Partnership, Canadian Oil Sands Limited, ConocoPhillips Oilsands Partnership
II, Mocal Energy Limited, Murphy Oil Company Ltd., Nexen Inc., and Petro-Canada
Oil and Gas.

 30 

|                                |  |                               
|------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------
|FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: 
|Pius Rolheiser  Public Affairs |  | Jean Cote  Investor Relations
|403-237-2663                    |  | 416-968-4262                  

5
#### John Kulaya, Appellant, v Dunbar Armored, Inc., Respondent.

[972 NYS2d 659]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age in violation of Executive Law § 296, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated April 4, 2011, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

To state a prima facie case of employment discrimination due to a disability under Executive Law § 296, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffers from a disability and that the disability engendered the behavior for which he or she was discriminated against in the terms, conditions, or privileges of his or her employment *(see Ruane-Wilkens v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*56 AD3d 648, 649 [2008]; *Thide v New York State Dept. of Transp.,*27 AD3d 452, 453 [2006]; *Timashpolsky v State Univ. of N.Y. Health Science Ctr. at Brooklyn,*306 AD 2d 271, 272 [2003]). If the plaintiff succeeds in establishing a prima facie case, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the disability prevented the employee from performing the duties of the job in a reasonable manner or that the employer’s action was motivated by legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons *(see Thide v New York State Dept. of Transp.,*27 AD3d at 453; *Timashpolsky v State Univ. of N.Y. Health Science Ctr. at Brooklyn,*306 AD2d at 272). If the employer establishes that it had valid nondiscriminatory reasons for its action, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the stated reasons were pretextual *(see Thide v New York State Dept. of Transp.,*27 AD3d at 453).

Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging employment discrimination on the ground of disability by showing legitimate, independent, and nondiscriminatory reasons *773for its employment decision (see *id.; Kipper v Doron Precision Sys.,*194 AD2d 855, 856 [1993]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the reasons stated for his discharge from employment were pretextual (see *Pimentel v Citibank, N.A.,*29 AD3d 141, 148 [2006]; *Kipper v Doron Precision Sys.,*194 AD2d at 856; *King v Town of Wallkill,*302 F Supp 2d 279, 291-292 [SD NY 2004]; *cf. Matter of Mair-Headley v County of Westchester,*41 AD3d 600, 602-603 [2007]). Specifically, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether there remained a full-time, light-duty position available after the defendant’s relocation to a larger facility. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging employment discrimination on the basis of disability. Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Cubic Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSBfor the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, as C.F.O., certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: May 13, 2008 |
|-------------------------|
|                    |
| Signature:              |  /s/  Scott D. Guffey |   |
|                    |  Scott D. Guffey,  C.F.O. |

 

----