alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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  amended  Annual  Report  of  Anaren,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form  10-K/A for the year  ended June 30,  2006 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,
Lawrence A. Sala, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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.


/s/ Lawrence A. Sala
-------------------------------------
Lawrence A. Sala
President and Chief Executive Officer
January 31, 2007

      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been provided to Anaren, Inc. and will be retained by Anaren, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

<PAGE>

                                                                      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  amended  Annual  Report  of  Anaren,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form  10-K/A for the year  ended June 30,  2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Joseph
E.  Porcello,  Senior Vice  President  of Finance and  Treasurer 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 to the best of 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.


/s/ Joseph E. Porcello
----------------------------------------

Joseph E. Porcello Sr.
Vice President of Finance and Treasurer
January 31, 2007

      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been provided to Anaren, Inc. and will be retained by Anaren, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
LAW OFFICES OF JOANNE WILLIS NEWTON
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

June 30, 2017
BY EMAIL TO Vannice_Doulou@nigce.gov

National Indian Gaming Commission
Attn: Vannice Doulou

1849 C St. NW

Mailstop #1621

Washington, DC 20240

RE: Comments on Draft Class III MICS Guidance
Dear Ms. Doulou:

I am writing on behalf of my client, the Pauma Gaming Commission the tribal gaming
agency of the Pauma Band of Mission Indians, to express the Pauma Gaming Commission’s
support for the NIGC’s proposal to suspend 25 C.ER. Part 542, which will preserve the text
of the regulation in the Code of Federal Regulations but clarify that the regulation is not
enforceable.

The Pauma Gaming Commission supports the publication of Class III MICS as non-binding
guidelines because it is one of the California tribes that chosen the NIGC alternative compliance
option under the California Gambling Control Commission’s regulation CGCC-8. This option
allows California gaming tribes to avoid application of CGCC MICS standards and CGCC
compliance verification inspections when the tribe’s gaming laws provide for NIGC monitoring
and enforcement of the MICS set out in 25 C.ER. Part 542 (as in effect in 2006 or as amended).

The Pauma Gaming Commission looks forward to continuing to collaborate with the NIGC on
Class III MICS compliance inspections and reviews on a voluntary government-to-government
basis.

Sincerely,

Joanne Willis Newton

encls.

cc: Alex Sanchez, Executive Director, Pauma Gaming Commission

1637 E. VALLEY PARKWAY, #276 * ESCONDIDO, CA * 92027
TEL.: (800) 690-1558 * TEL./FAX: (760) 553-9473 + jwn@willisnewtonlaw.com
www.willisnewtonlaw.com
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 1 8

- BG

- 626

IN RE CLAUDE D. CONVISSER

201 6 D DN 12 3

A n Inactive Member of the Bar of the

Distri ct of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Reg istration No. 4 3 9 202

BEFORE: Glickman and McLeese , Associate Judge s
, and Nebeker

, Senior Judge.

O R D E R (FILED

– August 22 , 2018)

On consideration of the certified order of the Supreme Court of New Mexico suspending respondent from the practice of law in that state f or a period of one

year, with the suspension fully stayed ; the June 12 , 2018, order of this court directing respondent to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed ; respondent’s response ; the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline; and the lodged reply by respondent, it is

ORDERED

, sua sponte

, that respondent’s lodged reply to Disciplinary

Counsel’s statement regarding reciprocal discipline is filed . It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Clause D. Convisser i s hereby suspended from

the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of one year, the imposition of which is stayed

. To the extent respondent challenges the imposition of reciprocal discipline by asserting the exception that his actions would not

constitute misconduc t in this jurisdiction, this court holds that respondent has not

established the exception

. The finding s by the S tate of New Mexico

, based on documentation created by respondent

, that respondent engaged in both unauthorized practice of law and misrepresentation would support a finding of both violations if they occurred in this jurisdiction. Further , the standard of proof by theS tate of New Mexico, by itself

, does not bar this court from imposing reciprocal discipline. See, e.g.

, In re Changa nti , 144 A.3d 20 (D.C. 2016) (reviewing the record in full the use of preponderance of evidence by the initiating jurisdiction does not mandate a finding of infirmity of proof). Lastly, to the extent that respondent seeks to re

- argue the merits of his ori ginal discipline or argue

additional fact s , such an attempt is improper in reciprocal disciplinary matters. S ee In re Zdravkovich , 831 A.2d 964 , 969 (D.C. 2003) (“Pu t simpl y , reciprocal discipline proceedings are not a forum to reargue the foreign discipli ne

. ”)

. T herefore, respondent has f a iled to rebut the presumption that reciprocal discipline will be imposed. See In re Sibley , 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010), and In re Fuller , 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies unless one of the exceptions is established).

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The
undersigned officers hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of COMFORCE Corporation for the fiscal year December 28, 2003 as to which this Certification is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and (2) the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of COMFORCE
Corporation.



Date: March 26, 2004



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Harry V. Maccarrone                             
|Harry V. Maccarrone,                                
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

UNION SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Union Security Insurance Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, P. Bruce Camacho, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 9, 2007



/s/ P. Bruce CamachoP. Bruce CamachoPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### Michael PEREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee, v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant, *937William Allsbury, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-13128

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 29, 2006.

Peter William Bellas, Carlos E. Sardi, Genovese Joblove & Battista, P.A., Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee.

Lee Alan Kraftchick, Miami-Dade County Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant.

Jason “Ace” Bloch, Miami-Dade County Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and CONWAY,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Anne C. Conway, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Perez appeals the district court’s award of costs to Miami-Dade County (“County”) after the district court granted summary judgment in the County’s favor. Perez makes the following arguments on appeal. First, he contends that the County failed to comply with the rules of the district court when it failed to timely file any document in support of its initial motion to tax costs and by failing to support its request with particularity. Second, Perez claims that the district court awarded thousands of dollars of costs not permitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Finally, he argues that the district court’s grant of summary judgment in the underlying appeal should be reversed, and therefore, the district court’s award of costs to the County should be vacated.

The County argues that the district court’s award of costs should be affirmed. However, the County cross-appeals the district court’s determination of the award, claiming that the district court employed the incorrect standard in denying the award of the trial transcript and two deposition transcripts. The County concedes, however, that if we reverse summary judgment in the underlying appeal, the award of costs should be vacated.

Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that “costs other than attorneys’ fees shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.” “Absent a contrary legislative directive, a ‘prevailing party’ is one who prevails on ‘any significant issue’ and thereby achieves some of the benefits sought by bringing suit.” *Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council of Volusia County, Fla.,*307 F.3d 1318, 1323 n. 4 (11th Cir.2002) (quoting *Tex. State Teachers Ass’n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist.,*489 U.S. 782, 791-92,109 S.Ct. 1486, 1493,103 L.Ed.2d 866 (1989)).

Here, we reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the County in the underlying substantive appeal. *Perez v. Miami-Dade County,*168 Fed.Appx. 338 (11th Cir.2006) (per curiam). This being the case, the County is no longer the prevailing party for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). *938Therefore, we vacate the district court’s award of costs in favor of the County.

VACATED.
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 the Interior

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary is announcing a public meeting of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Public Advisory Committee.

# DATES:

June 25, 2009, at 10:30 a.m.

# ADDRESSES:

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Office, 441 West 5th Avenue, Suite 500, Anchorage, Alaska.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Douglas Mutter, Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, 1689 “C” Street, Suite 119, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, (907) 271-5011.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Public Advisory Committee was created by Paragraph V.A.4 of the Memorandum of Agreement and Consent Decree entered into by the United States of America and the State of Alaska on August 27, 1991, and approved by the United States District Court for the District of Alaska in settlement of                     *United States of America*                     v.                    *State of Alaska,*                     Civil Action No. A91-081 CV. The meeting agenda will include a review of the draft fiscal year 2010 work plan and budget.                

Willie R. Taylor,

Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.

[FR Doc. E9-13174 Filed 6-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-RG-P
**Exhibit 15.2**

 

**Independent Auditors’ Consent**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of KT Corporation on Form F-3 (No. 333-100251) ofour reports dated March 27, 2004 and March 7, 2003, relating to our audits of the financial statements of KT Freetel Co., Ltd. (which reports express an unqualified opinion and include explanatory paragraphs relating to the merger of KT Freetel Co.,Ltd. with KT ICOM Co., Ltd. and KT M.Com Ltd.), appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of KT Corporation for the three years ended December 31, 2003, and to the reference to our firm under the heading “Experts” in the registrationstatement on Form F-3 of KT Corporation. 

 

Anjin Deloitte LLC 

 

Seoul, Korea 

June 25, 2004
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3164 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend financing of the 

Superfund. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 25, 2010 

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. 

SANDERS, Mr. MERKLEY, and Mr. CARDIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

financing of the Superfund. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Polluter Pays Restora5 tion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF SUPERFUND TAXES. 

7 (a) EXCISE TAXES.—Section 4611(e) of the Internal 

8 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(e) APPLICATION OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE

10 SUPERFUND FINANCING RATE.—The Hazardous SubVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:12 Mar 26, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3164.IS S3164

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3164 IS

1 stance Superfund financing rate under this section shall 

2 apply after December 31, 1986, and before January 1, 

3 1996, and after the date of the enactment of this sub4 section and before January 1, 2017.’’. 

5 (b) CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL INCOME TAX.— 

6 Section 59A(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

7 amended to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(e) APPLICATION OF TAX.—The tax imposed by this 

9 section shall apply to taxable years beginning after De10 cember 31, 1986, and before January 1, 1996, and to tax11 able years beginning after the date of the enactment of 

12 this subsection and before January 1, 2017.’’. 

13 (c) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.— 

14 (1) Section 4611(b) of the Internal Revenue 

15 Code of 1986 is amended— 

16 (A) by striking ‘‘or exported from’’ in 

17 paragraph (1)(A), 

18 (B) by striking ‘‘or exportation’’ in para19 graph (1)(B), and 

20 (C) by striking ‘‘AND EXPORTATION’’ in 

21 the heading. 

22 (2) Section 4611(d)(3) of such Code is amend23 ed— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3164 IS

1 (A) by striking ‘‘or exporting the crude oil, 

2 as the case may be’’ in the text and inserting 

3 ‘‘the crude oil’’, and 

4 (B) by striking ‘‘OR EXPORTS’’ in the 

5 heading. 

6 (d) EFFECTIVE DATES.— 

7 (1) EXCISE TAXES.—The amendments made by 

8 subsections (a) and (c) shall take effect on the date 

9 of the enactment of this Act. 

10 (2) INCOME TAX.—The amendment made by 

11 subsection (b) shall apply to taxable years beginning 

12 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Lee CLONCE, also known as Rick Clonce, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-60821

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2006.

Richard Terrell Starrett, Cynthia Lynn Eldridge, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Samuel Dennis Joiner, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Richard Lee Clonce has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Clonce received a copy of counsel’s motion and has not filed a response. Our independent review of counsel’s brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### In the Matter of Celso L. Castillo, Petitioner, v John B. Latella, Respondent.

[976 NYS2d 892]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent, John B. Latella, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, to determine the petitioner’s motion pursuant to CPL article 440 to vacate a judgment of conviction of the same court rendered October 22, 1998, in a criminal action *923entitled *People v Castillo,*commenced in that court under indictment Nos. 734/97 and 1482/97, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied as academic and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only where there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought *(see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman,*53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). Here, the petitioner seeks mandamus to compel the respondent to determine the petitioner’s motion pursuant to CPL article 440 to vacate a judgment of conviction rendered in an underlying criminal action. In an order dated November 25, 2013, the respondent determined the motion. Hence, we deny the petition as academic, and dismiss the proceeding. Skelos, J.P, Dillon, Dickerson and Austin, JJ., concur.
{"agency":"NIGC","generated":"2016-10-28 18:34:22","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"}],"value":"2016"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q4"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"5"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["NIGC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["13"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["4"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["39"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2016","quarter":"Q4"}