alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

**Certification of the Principal Executive Officer of**

**Videotron Ltd.**

**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 AnnualReport of Videotron Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ending December 31,2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Robert Dépatie, President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(1)                                                      The Report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)                                                      The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: March 6, 2009 |                                          |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                     |                                          |
|                     |                                          |
|                     | /s/ Robert Dépatie                       |
|                     |                                          |
|                     | Name: Robert Dépatie                     |
|                     | Title: President and Chief Executive  Officer |

 

 

*The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part ofthe Report or as a separate disclosure document.*

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 94 (Monday, May 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11643]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act; Notice of Agency Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Thursday, May 21, 2009.

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314-3428.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
    1. Final Rule--Part 717, Subpart E, Sections 717.40-717.43, 
Appendix E of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Fair Credit Reporting.
    2. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking--Part 717, Subpart E, 
Sections 717.40-717.43, Appendix E of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, 
Fair Credit Reporting.
    3. Waiver of Fidelity Bond Coverage Increase, Section 713.5 of 
NCUA's Rules and Regulations.
    4. Insurance Fund Report.

RECESS: 11 a.m.

TIME AND DATE: 11:15 a.m., Thursday, May 21, 2009.

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314-3428.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
    1. Creditor Claim Appeal. Closed pursuant to Exemption (6).
    2. Consideration of Supervisory Activities (4). Closed pursuant to 
some or all of the following: Exemptions (8) and (9)(A)(ii) and 9(B).
    3. Personnel (3). Closed pursuant to some or all of the following: 
Exemptions (2) and (6).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, 
Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Mary Rupp,
Board Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11643 Filed 5-14-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
#### In re Uriel MORENO-MENDOZA, Petitioner.

No. 06-4822.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 20, 2006.

Decided Nov. 15, 2006.

Uriel Moreno-Mendoza, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Uriel Moreno-Mendoza seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to schedule his resentencing hearing. Moreno-Mendoza’s resentencing hearing took place on September 28, 2006. Accordingly, while we grant his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny as moot his petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
#### Frank DeSario, Respondent, v SL Green Management LLC et al., Appellants.

[963 NYS2d 24]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered May 17, 2012, which, in this personal injury action, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was allegedly injured after he attempted to maneuver defendants’ lift, which weighed approximately 740 pounds, under a low-hanging pipe, in order to move it up a ramp to a location where he was scheduled to repair a security camera on defendants’ property. Given the conflicting deposition testimony *422as to what was said and to whom, any determination would be based upon the credibility of the parties, which is to be resolved at trial, not on a motion for summary judgment *(see S.J. Capelin*Assoc. *v Globe Mfg. Corp.,*34 NY2d 338, 341 [1974]; *Carrozzi v Gotham Meat Corp.,*181 AD2d 587 [1st Dept 1992]). Indeed, a question of fact exists as to whether defendant SL Green Realty’s engineer violated a duty to impart correct information, by allegedly telling plaintiff that it was “not a big deal” to tilt the lift, and that the maneuver was done “all the time,” without telling him that at least three people were required to move the machine safely *(see Heard v City of New York,*82 NY2d 66, 73-74 [1993]; *Hudson Riv. Club v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y.,*275 AD2d 218, 220 [1st Dept 2000]). Plaintiffs testimony on this point was not inadmissable hearsay, as it was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Rather, it was offered only as evidence that the statements were in fact made *{see Giardino v Beranbaum,*279 AD2d 282 [1st Dept 2001]).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Feinman and Clark, JJ.
NGA has identified the following specific eNGAge requirements. This list is updated as 

new requirements are identified and as eNGAge opportunities are filled. 

eNGAge Outt Requirements for NGA employees to have immersive experiences with 

industry or academia

Geodetic Survey Program

NGA Source Applied Sciences has identified a training and development requirement for 

a member of Team NGA to work with industry or academia for up to one year to 

enhance capabilities and help define future needs and capabilities for the Geodetic 

Survey Program.

The ideal industry or academia host would be a survey instrument company, terrestrial 

LIDAR developer, or developer of new gravity or geodetic collection methods.

New Gravity and/or Magnetic Data

NGA Source Applied Sciences has identified a training and development requirement for 

a member of Team NGA to work with industry or academia for up to one year in the 

area of new gravity and/or magnetic data collection, processing, and analysis to help 

NGA improve technical capabilities in this area.

The ideal industry or academia host would be an expert in gravity and/or magnetic 

collection, analysis, and modeling methods.

Atomic Clock Performance and Characterization

NGA Source Applied Sciences has identified a training and development requirement for 

a member of Team NGA to work with industry or academia for up to one year in the 

area of atomic clock performance and characterization to help NGA improve technical 

capabilities in this area.

The ideal industry or academia host would be an expert in atomic clocks both terrestrial 

and satellite based.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Consolidation Services, Inc.  (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary D. Kucher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  

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

(2)  

Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Dated:  June 4, 2012

/s/ Gary D. Kucher

 

By:  Gary D. Kucher 

 

Its:  Chief Executive Officer

A signed original 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. |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CASH
FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                                             247
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,247
<ALLOWANCES>                                       822
<INVENTORY>                                      4,954
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,279
<PP&E>                                          10,526
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,637
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,016
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,125
<BONDS>                                         12,661
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           323
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,815
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,016
<SALES>                                         16,122
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,493
<CGS>                                           11,977
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,977
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,890
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   597
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 693
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    607
<INCOME-TAX>                                       308
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                299
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       299
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Not applicable
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Adamson *v.*Melson.

A case was tried in December, 1892, during the September adjourned term of the superior court, and at that term an order was passed reciting that a motion for a new trial had been filed, and allowing movant “until the third Saturday in January, 1893, and until such time as may be then designated by the court, in which to perfect his motion and prepare a copy of the written and brief of the oral testimony in said case.”, On the day last named, the hearing of the motion was, by a consent order, continued until the fourth day of February. The hearing was then, by another consent order, -again continued until the March term, 1893, of the *726court. Neither of these consent orders designated expressly any time within which the brief of evidence might be filed or approved, or made any reference whatever to this subject. At the March term there was a motion to dismiss the motion for a new trial, and an order was then passed continuing the hearing of the motion for a new trial until the September term of the court, with leave to respondent to renew his motion to dismiss. This order also extended the movant’s time for having the brief of evidence approved and filed, until the September term. It does not appear that this was consented to by the respondent in the motion, but it was not excepted to by him. At the September term the hearing of the motion was again continued until the 16th of October, in vacation, “the movant to be in no way prejudiced by the delay.” On that day it was again continued, “ with all rights reserved to both sides,” until November 11th, when the motion to dismiss the motion for a new trial was overruled, and a new trial was granted. The motion to dismiss recites that a brief of evidence was filed in the clerk’s office August 29th, 1893, but it does not appear that the same was ever approved before November 11th, the time when the motion was heard and disposed of.

Under the facts recited, the two continuances by consent carried the whole matter into open court at Marsh term; the order granted at that term did the same with reference to the September term, and the orders granted at the latter term and subsequently thereto are susceptible of a construction which would- carry the whole matter down to November 11th, the time when the motion was actually heard and decided in vacation. The presiding judge having by his action adopted this construction, it was no abuse of discretion for him to approve the brief of-evidence at that time, no actual injustice as to the merits of the litigation, so far as appears, having resulted from his so doing; and it was not error to refuse to dismiss the motion for a new trial.

August 31, 1894.

Motion for a new trial. Before Judge Richard H. Clark. Clayton superior court. September term, 1898.

G. D. Stewart and Watterson & Kimsey, for plaintiff in error. John L. Doyal, *contra.*

*Judgment affirmed.*
Exhibit 32.2

Section 1350 Certification

In connection with the Annual Report of Allied Healthcare International Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, David Moffatt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

|    |                                                                                                                                                     
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: December 13, 2007

/s/ David Moffatt


David Moffatt
Chief Financial Officer of the Company
(principal financial officer)


---
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 52 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2005 

Referred to the Committee on Resources 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a parcel 

of real property to Beaver County, Utah. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

S 52 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE TO BEAVER COUNTY, UTAH. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—As soon as practicable after the 

3 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 

4 shall, without consideration and subject to valid existing 

5 rights, convey to Beaver County, Utah (referred to in this 

6 Act as the ‘‘County’’), all right, title, and interest of the 

7 United States in and to the approximately 200 acres de8 picted as ‘‘Minersville State Park’’ on the map entitled 

9 ‘‘S. 2285, Minersville State Park’’ and dated April 30, 

10 2004, for use for public recreation. 

11 (b) RECONVEYANCE BY BEAVER COUNTY.— 

12 (1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsection 

13 (a), Beaver County may sell, for not less than fair 

14 market value, a portion of the property conveyed to 

15 the County under this section, if the proceeds of 

16 such sale are used by the County solely for mainte17 nance of public recreation facilities located on the re18 mainder of the property conveyed to the County 

19 under this section. 

20 (2) LIMITATION.—If the County does not com21 ply with the requirements of paragraph (1) in the 

22 conveyance of the property under that paragraph— 

23 (A) the County shall pay to the United 

24 States the proceeds of the conveyance; and 

25 (B) the Secretary of the Interior may re26 quire that all property conveyed under sub-
3 

S 52 RFH 

1 section (a) (other than the property sold by the 

2 County under paragraph (1)) revert to the 

3 United States. 

Passed the Senate July 26, 2005. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary.
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 WMS Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brian R. Gamache, 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) of the Securities and 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/ Brian R. Gamache   
|Brian R. Gamache       
|Chief Executive Officer
|May 5, 2010            

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 WMS Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott D. Schweinfurth, 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 and 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/ Scott D. Schweinfurth
|Scott D. Schweinfurth    
|Chief Financial Officer  
|May 5, 2010
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**497 CA 12-01914**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

JAMES PANZARELLA, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KAREN PANZARELLA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

HOGAN WILLIG PLLC, AMHERST (STEVEN G. WISEMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD C. SLISZ, BUFFALO (RICHARD C. SLISZ OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered June 12, 2012. The order granted the cross motion of plaintiff to vacate the provisions of the parties’ Stipulation of Settlement providing for child support.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff’s cross motion seeking to vacate the provisions of the parties’ Stipulation of Settlement (stipulation) concerning plaintiff’s child support obligations on the ground that the stipulation failed to comply with Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (h). The stipulation “failed to include recitals stating that the parties were aware that following the [Child Support Standards Act] guidelines would result in the presumptively correct amount of support; . . . failed to set forth the presumptively correct amount of support that would have been fixed pursuant to the guidelines; and . . . failed to articulate the reason the parties chose to deviate from the guidelines. Consequently, [the stipulation] was invalid and unenforceable” ( Warnecke v Warnecke , 12 AD3d 502, 503-504; see Bushlow v Bushlow , 89 AD3d 663, 664; Jefferson v Jefferson , 21 AD3d 879, 880-881).

Entered: May 3, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
2001

Thomas C. Finnie

Leo A. Hazlewood

Dr. Annette J. Krygiel

Arthur C. Lundahl

Dr. Charles F. Martin

Lt. Gen. Howard W. Penney, USA (Ret.)

2002

Vincent N. DiRenzo

Dr. Irene K. Fischer

Brig. Gen. Rutledge P. Hazzard, USA (Ret.)

James P. Holmes

Dr. William C. Mahoney

Thomas L. Ramsey

Richard L. Reninger

Joseph L. Sullivan

2003

Mr. Lawrence F. Ayers

Vice Adm. Shannon D. Cramer, Jr., USN (Ret.)

Mr. Robert M. Huffstutler

Mr. Paul J. Peeler, Jr.

Col. Lloyd L. Rall, USA (Ret.)

2004

Charles H. Andregg

William J. Brown

James A. Quigley

Ivar Svendsen

Maj. Gen. Richard M. Wells, USA (Ret.)

2005

Allen E. Anderson

Dino A. Brugioni

Calvin E. Freeland Jr.

Penman M. Gilliam

Lt. Gen. James C. King, USA (Ret)

Maj. Gen. Robert A. Rosenberg, USAF (Ret)

2006 

William R. Allder Jr.

Kenneth I. Daugherty

Danny P. Neal

Albert N. Rhodes

2007

The Honorable James R. Clapper Jr.

Serenus W. Dossi

Col. Paul C. Schauer, USAF (Ret.)

Roberta E. Lenczowski

Edward J. Obloy

2008 

Howard G. Brotherton

Dewey S. Pegler

Dr. Richard R. Randall

2009

Roberta R. Munske

Kathleen M. Smith

2011 

George C. Brown

Thomas J. Burton

Sharon R. Parish
2013

Thomas A. Hennig

Col. Peter G. O’Neill, USA (Ret.)

Curtis B. Ward

Melvin L. Wagner

2014 

Steven C. Hall

Marie Tharp

Steven P. Wallach

Dr. Raymond J. Helmering

2015

Constance Babington Smith

Dr. Robert W. Ballew

Geoffrey H. Langsam

2016

Rear Adm. Christian Andreasen

Rear Adm. Joseph Dantone

Lou Decker

Joanne Isham

John Oswald

Women’s Army Corps Photo Interpreters

Army Map Service Civilian Women Cartographers

2017

Dr. David H. Alspaugh

Dr. Barbara A. Bond

Nancy E. Bone

Keith R. Hall

Vice Adm. Robert B. Murrett, USN (Ret.)

Lloyd B. Rowland

2018

Lt. Col. Floyd W. Hough, USA (Ret.)

Letitia A. Long

C. Lawrence Meador

C. Michael Poell

Dale A. Reighard

K. Stuart Shea

Operation Desert Storm Logistics Team (DMA)

2019

Justin E. Baer

William H. Heidbreder

Brig. Gen. Gilbert W. Kirby, Jr., USA (Ret.)

John P. Tuley

2020

Barry W. Barlow

Louis A. Bauer

Stacy L. Gardner, Jr.

John H. Hild

James E. Johnson

Paula Webb Roberts

2021

Dennis Moellman

Eric R. Benn 

Gerald M. Elphingstone

Keith E. Littlefield
Know the World [W-2._
Ul PEA

a
kgs >
SNS