alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2









CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


RULE 13A-14(B) OR RULE 15D-14(B)


OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AND


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 Consolidation Services, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John C. Francis, 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:





(a)
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 31, 2010


CONSOLIDATION SERVICES, INC.








By: /s/ John C. Francis


John C. Francis


Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Consolidation Services, Inc. and will be retained by Consolidation Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SS. 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of World Waste Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, John Pimentel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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.





|               |  |                         | 
|-------------- |  | ----------------------- | 
|March 30, 2009 |  | /s/ John Pimentel       | 
|               |  | John Pimente            | 
|               |  | Chief Executive Officer |
NATHANIEL STEWART,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1760

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 20, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Thomas V. Dannheisser, Judge.

Nathaniel Stewart, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jillian H. Reding, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B. L. THOMAS, ROWE, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 4.22  


[Letterhead of Purchaser of Separate Notes]  





        [Pricing
Date] 






FairPoint
Communications, Inc.

521 East Morehead Street, Suite 250

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 


Ladies
and Gentlemen: 


        In
connection with the offering (the "Offering") by FairPoint Communications, Inc. (the "Company") of
(i) [    ] Income Deposit Securities ("IDSs") representing [    ] shares of the Company's common stock, par value $0.01 per
share (the "Stock") and $[    ] million aggregate principal amount of the Company's
[    ]% senior subordinated notes due 2019 (the "Notes") pursuant to the Underwriting Agreement, dated the date
hereof, by and among the Company and CIBC World Markets, Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. and UBS Securities LLC and the other underwriters named therein and
(ii) $[    ] million aggregate principal amount of Notes sold separately (not represented by IDSs) (the "Separate
Notes") pursuant to the Underwriting Agreement, dated the date hereof, between the Company and CIBC World Markets, Inc., the undersigned confirms that he or she has the
authority to purchase Separate Notes on behalf of the purchaser and further confirms that, to the best of his or her actual knowledge, but without any duty to perform any investigation with respect to
such matters: 



	(a)
	Neither
the purchaser of any Separate Notes nor any entity, investment fund or account over which the undersigned exercises investment control (a "Controlled Account") is purchasing
IDSs in the Offering or owns or has the contractual right to acquire equity securities of the Company (including securities which are convertible, exchangeable or exercisable into or for equity or
equity-linked securities of the Company, collectively "Company Equity");



	(b)
	There
is no plan or pre-arrangement by which (i) the purchaser or any Controlled Account will acquire any IDSs or Company Equity or (ii) Separate Notes being
acquired by the purchaser will be or would be (after giving effect to any planned or pre-arranged transfers) owned, directly or indirectly by, any person who, directly or indirectly, owns
IDSs or Company Equity;



	(c)
	There
is no plan or pre-arrangement by which the purchaser will sell or transfer any of the Separate Notes being acquired by it (or any economic risk of loss in respect
thereof) to the Company, any underwriter or any person who, directly or indirectly, owns IDSs or Company Equity; and



	(d)
	None
of the underwriters exercise any investment discretion, directly or indirectly, over the purchaser's decision to purchase the Separate Notes. 





	

 	

Very truly yours,
	

 	

[Name of Purchaser]
	

 	

 Name:

Title:
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                --------------


                                CERTIFICATIONS
                                --------------

I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
          10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
          report on Form 10-K of Alternative Loan Trust 2007-9T1 (the
          "Exchange Act periodic reports");

     2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
          whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
          omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
          in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
          not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
          information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
          covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
          reports;

     4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance review(s)
          conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement(s) required
          in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
          disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer(s) have
          fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all
          material respects; and

     5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
          criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
          reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
          asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
          accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
          13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report,
          except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
          of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
          this report on Form 10-K.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York, as
Trustee.

   Date:  March 26, 2008

          /s/ Steve Bailey
          -------------------------
          Steve Bailey
          Senior Managing Director, Chief Executive Officer Loan Administration
          (Senior officer in charge of the servicing function of
          Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP)
#### Marie Castro, Petitioner, v Department of Social Services et al., Respondents.

[871 NYS2d 93]

Decision by the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, dated June 12, 2007, which, after a fair hearing, upheld the determination of respondent New York City Department of Social Services (DSS) to discontinue public assistance benefits for petitioner’s failure to appear at a mandatory appointment for evaluation of work activity, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Jane S. Solomon, J.], entered October 1, 2007), dismissed, without costs.

There was substantial evidence to support the determination that petitioner’s failure to comply with the employment requirement for public assistance by missing a mandatory work activity evaluation appointment was willful and without good cause *(see Matter of Tessler v Hammons,*251 AD2d 63 [1998]). The record reveals that petitioner received notice of her appointment *(see Matter of Bonilla v New York State Dept. of Social Servs.,*219 AD2d 526 [1995], *lv denied*87 NY2d 807 [1996]), but failed to appear due to a conflict with an internship she had started two weeks earlier. That job, which demanded only 12 hours of her work per week, had been secured on her own, without approval by DSS. She never notified DSS of any conflict with her appointment, even though the notice of her meeting offered her that opportunity.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.
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 of PML, Inc (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB
for the period ended May 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald E. Horne, Principal
Accounting 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 result of operations of
         the Company.

/s/ Ronald E. Horne
Ronald E. Horne
Controller
PML, Inc
August 28, 2002
#### The Pennsylvania Steel Company *v.*The Georgia Railroad and Banking Company.

Where the same vendor, under a single contract of sale, shipped by rail several consignments of goods to the same vendee, each shipment embracing several car-loads, the carrier had the right to retain out of any one or more of the consignments enough of the goods in value to pay the charges for freight and storage upon all, without respect to the particular consignments out of which the goods were retained. , And this right of the carrier has the same relation to the right of stoppage *in transitu*by the vendor which it has to the right of the consignee to claim delivery of the retained goods where no stoppage occurred. Payment of the freight and storage must be made before the consignor can obtain possession under the right of stoppage *in transitu. Judgment affirmed.*

July 23, 1894

Complaint in trover. Before Judge Eve. City court of Richmond county. November term, 1893.

Plaintiff sold a number of tons of rails, spikes, bolts, etc., and shipped them in car-load lots at different dates, *637which cars came into possession of defendant as the last of the connecting lines of carriers. From each consignment.defendant retained one or two cars to secure itself for the freight and demurrage it claimed on such consignment, and delivered to the consignee the rest of the cars. Plaintiff discovered that it had been misled into selling the goods on credit by fraudulent representations of the consignee, its vendee; and thereupon served on defendant a notice of stoppage *in transitu*for the cars held by it under its claim of lien for freight, tendering the amount of all charges on the cars so stopped. Defendant refused to deliver these cars to plaintiff, unless it would pay the freight and demurrage due on the cars-already delivered to the consignee. Plaintiff contended, that while defendant’s claim might be good as against the consignee, it was inferior to plaintiff’s claim so far as freight was demanded on cars delivered; also, that as each car contained a different number of tons of rails, and the way-bill showed the weight in each, and the amount due on each car was readily ascertainable, each car constituted a separate shipment so far as plaintiff’s rights were concerned; and that defendant in delivering the freight, departed from its general custom requiring cash before delivery. A demurrer to the declaration was sustained, unless plaintiff would pay the freight and charges on the cars delivered as well as on those stopped, it appearing that the value of the latter was not equal to the freight and charges. Plaintiff excepted.

William T. Davidson, for plaintiff'.

J. B. *Gumming*and Bryan Cummins, for defendant.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7652

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FREDERICK RAY LINEBERGER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief

District Judge. (CR-93-90, CA-96-19-4-V)

Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: April 24, 1998

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frederick Ray Lineberger, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Lineberger, Nos. CR-93-90; CA-96-19-4-V

(W.D.N.C. Sept. 29, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
#### Juliette DeJoie Cadichon et al, Appellants, v Thomas Facelle, M.D., et al., Respondents.

Decided July 1, 2010

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY 28 AUGUST 2018
(Sa Catastrophic Accident During Final Launch Preparations For Safir SLV Launch at Semnan Launch Site 1:4 wrerten is smssarste GEOINT protest warn consumers of emerging sant Fasow-on

apart may cotan afora det or rew ntymaton which may change de cured aesasent

Scorching and damage present
only on northern side of launch pad

Damaged gantry
service tower

Damaged support vehicle

Damaged propellant
bummer taller Damaged Safir

mobile-erector-launcher
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. VERNELLE LAFARRIS BULLOCK, SR.

No. 445P02-3

ORDER

The Attorney General’s Petition for Discretionary Review is allowed for the limited purpose of (1) vacating that portion of the Court of Appeals opinion ordering remand to the trial court for resentencing and (2) remanding to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of *State v. Timothy Earl Blackwell,*361 N.C. 41, — S.E.2d-(2006). The Court of Appeals opinion remains undisturbed in all other respects.

By Order of the Court in Conference, this 19th day of December, 2006.

s/Timmons-Goodson. J. For the Court
Employment Letter - Mark Haight



 Exhibit 10.2 
 [INFRA-METALS LETTERHEAD] 
 Mr. Mark Haight 
 Infra Metals Co 
 8 Pent Highway 
 Wallingford, Connecticut 06492 
 USA 
 PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL 
 23 March 2005 
 Dear Mark: 
 NOTICE PERIOD 
 Following
our recent discussions I am pleased to be able to offer you an improvement to your contractual notice period. If you agree to the variation offered please sign both copies of this letter. You should keep one copy for your records and give the other
copy back to me. On signing this letter these changes will have immediate effect. 
 Your existing notice period is 2 weeks on either side. On reviewing this
matter, I believe the notice period should be changed to reflect your position in the Company. Therefore, it is proposed that the period of notice to be given by you to the company to terminate your employment shall be 6 months. The period of notice
to be given to you by the Company shall be 12 months. 
 The notice period (12 months) will also be applicable with regard to any change in your salary,
benefits (which for the sake of good order are set out in the attached schedule), position (including location) or formula for calculation of your annual incentive payment. 
 Yours sincerely, 
  

	
	/s/ V H Sher
	 V H Sher
 Chairman
 Infra Metals Inc


 I agree to the change in notice periods, and I understand that all other terms and conditions of employment remain
unchanged. 
  

			
	Signed:	 	/s/ Mark Haight

 Dated: 3/24/05 







 NORTHERN REGION 
 BONUS FORMULA – MARK HAIGHT, PRESIDENT 
 YEAR: 
 (Audited) 
 Mr. Mark Haight is entitled to a bonus annually which is based on the profits of the
New England and Central divisions. The formula starts with the audited EBIT. From that number is deducted 10% of the 12 month average assets employed which results in a basis for the bonus. The bonus basis is multiplied times 5% to arrive at the
fiscal year bonus. 
  

									
	 PERIOD:_______________
	  			 			 	
	 	  	New Eng.	 	 	Central	 	 	 
	 EBT
	  			 			 	
	 Add: Interest Expense
	  			 			 	
		  	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	 EBIT
	  	—  	 	 	—  	 	 	
	 Less % of Ave. assets employed
	  			 			 	
	 Ave assets employed
	  			 			 	
	 Reduction %
	  	10.00	%	 	10.00	%	 	
	 Reduction amount
	  	—  	 	 	—  	 	 	
	 Basis for Bonus
	  	—  	 	 	—  	 	 	
	 Bonus %
	  	5	%	 	5	%	 	
		  	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	 Bonus amount
	  	—  	 	 	—  	 	 	—  
		  	 	 	 	 	 	 	 








 INFRA-METALS CO. 
 Automobile Fringe Benefit 
 Mark Haight is entitled to an automobile which is leased to the Company. Upon the
termination of the lease, he shall receive a new leased automobile, subject to the approval of the President. A leased automobile is considered part of their overall compensation package. 
 Vacations 
 Effective January 1, 2005, Mark Haight is entitled to paid vacation as follows:

  

			
	Mark Haight	  	5 Weeks
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 19, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11725]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0664]


Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee; Cancellation

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The meeting of the Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee 
scheduled for May 20, 2009, is cancelled. This meeting was announced in 
the Federal Register of April 7, 2009 (74 FR 15739). The FDA's Center 
for Drug Evaluation and Research is continuing to review the 
application that was going to be discussed by the committee.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Kristine T. Khuc, Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research (HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 
Fishers Lane (for express delivery, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1093), 
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-7001, FAX: 301-827-6776, e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d59ea7bca6a1bcbbb0fb9ebda0b695b3b1b4fbbdbda6fbb2baa3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5d162f342e29343338731635283e1d3b393c7335352e733a322b">[email protected]</span></a>, or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 
1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area), code 
3014512538. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information 
on this meeting.

    Dated: May 14, 2009.
Randall W. Lutter,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-11725 Filed 5-15-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32

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 Quarterly Report of Telos Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the report), we, John B. Wood and Michele Nakazawa, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:

(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.



August 14, 2006/s/ John B. WoodJohn B. WoodChief Executive Officer/s/ Michele NakazawaMichele NakazawaChief Financial Officer