alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 SCI Engineered Materials, Inc.  (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for
the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gerald S. Blaskie, Vice
President and Chief Financial 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:




(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/
      Gerald S. BlaskieGerald
      S. BlaskieVice
      President and Chief Financial Officer ofSCI Engineered Materials, Inc. (Principal Financial Officer
      and Principal Accounting Officer)May
      5, 2009
#### Fred E. EVANS, Nancy A. Evans, Randy W. Froebe, Debra J. Froebe, Geneva Grubbs, Norma Lou Hall, Shirley Hendricks, David Houser, Gail Houser, Patrick J. O’Bryan, Trustee of the Patrick J. O’Bryan Revocable Living Trust Under Agreement Dated 9/7/2001, Lester Roark, Donald Lee Roper, II, and B. Lorene Soper, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2010-1303.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 28, 2010.

Mark F. (“Thor”) Hearne II, Meghan S. Largent, Lindsay S.C. Brinton, Arent Fox LLP, Clayton, MO, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Kathryn E. Kovacs, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The appellants submit a response to the court’s June 9, 2010 order and move to continue the stay of proceedings until the United States files a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court in *Bright v. United States,*No. 2009-5048, and the Supreme Court issues a final decision or until the time expires for the United States to file a petition for a writ of certiorari.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

The motion to continue the stay of proceedings is granted. The parties are directed to file a status report every 60 days, from the date of filing of this order, concerning, inter alia, whether a certiorari petition has been filed and the status of any petition.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2581

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to make a grant to the State

of Tennessee for the purpose of erecting a highway sign to inform

motorists of the location of the Living Heritage Museum in McMinn

County, Tennessee.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 1, 1993

Mr. DUNCAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Public Works and Transportation

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to make a grant

to the State of Tennessee for the purpose of erecting

a highway sign to inform motorists of the location of

the Living Heritage Museum in McMinn County, Tennessee.

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

3 SECTION 1. HIGHWAY SIGN FOR LIVING HERITAGE MU4 SEUM, McMINN COUNTY, TENNESSEE.

5 (a) GRANT.—The Secretary of Transportation shall

6 make a grant to the State of Tennessee for the purpose

7 of erecting a highway sign on Interstate Route 75 at Exit
2

•HR 2581 IH

1 49 to inform motorists of the location of the Living Herit2 age Museum in McMinn County, Tennessee.

3 (b) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost

4 of erecting the highway sign described in subsection (a)

5 shall be 100 percent.

Æ
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER00-3766-002]

Take notice that on January 22, 2001, Canal Electric Company (Canal) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), a corrected copy of the second restated sixth amendment to the Power Contract between Canal and its retail affiliates Cambridge Electric Light Company and Commonwealth Electric Company (Canal Rate Schedule FERC No. 33, the Seabrook Power Contract). This filing corrects Canal's filing made with the Commission on December 18, 2000 in the above-referenced proceeding, whereby it submitted the Restated Sixth Amendment. This corrected filing re-designates the Seabrook Power Contract in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Order 614.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before March 1, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm*                     (call 202-208-222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-4351 Filed 2-21-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 3.6

                          CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION OF

                           CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION

                                       OF

                                COMPOSITECH LTD.

It is hereby certified that:


     1. The name of the corporation  (hereinafter  called the  "Corporation") is
Compositech Ltd.

     2. The Certificate of Designation of the Corporation,  which was filed with
the Secretary of State of Delaware on November 1, 1999, is hereby corrected.

     3. The inaccuracy to be corrected in said instrument is as follows:

          (i) In the first  sentence  of Section  6.8,  the phrase "On the third
     anniversary of this  Agreement"  was mistakenly  used instead of the phrase
     "On the third anniversary of the Issue Date."

     4. In its corrected form, Section 6.8 shall read as follows:

                        Section 6.8 Mandatory Conversion

     On the third  anniversary  of the Issue  Date  (the  "Mandatory  Conversion
Date"),  the Corporation  shall convert all Series C Preferred Stock outstanding
at the  Conversion  Price  utilizing  the Stated Value (plus  accrued and unpaid
dividends) as the value of each share of Series C Preferred  Stock,  into Common
Stock  which  is  registered  for  resale  in open  market  transactions  on the
Registration Statement (as defined in the Registration Rights Agreement),  which
Registration Statement shall then be effective under the Securities Act.


<PAGE>




     IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  Corporation  has  caused  this  Certificate  of
Correction  of  Certificate  of  Designation  to be signed by a duly  authorized
officer this 5th day of November, 1999.



                                       COMPOSITECH LTD.


                                        By:  /s/ Christopher F. Johnson
                                             -----------------------------
                                        Name: Christopher F. Johnson
                                        Title:   President
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas May 25, 2021 No. 04-21-00043-CV RCI ENTERTAINMENT (SAN ANTONIO), INC , d/b/a XTC Cabaret. (“XTC”), Appellant

v. THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO , Mayor Ron Nirenberg, and Michael E. Shannon, in their Official Capacities, Appellees From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-CI-23536 Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellant’s brief was originally due April 26, 2021; however, the court granted an extension of time until May 26. Appellant has filed a motion requesting an additional thirty days to file the brief. We grant the motion and order Appellant’s brief due June 25, 2021 (sixty days after the original due date). Appellant is advised that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a motion, filed before the brief is due, that (1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) advises the court of the efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the court reasonable assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 25th day of May, 2021.___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 13.1

906 CERTIFICATION

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the report) for the purpose of
complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Ignacio Antoñanzas A., the Chief Executive Officer and Eduardo Escaffi J., the Chief Financial Officer of Enersis S.A., each
certifies that, to the best of their knowledge:



| | 1. | the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Enersis.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 20, 2013.



/s/ Ignacio Antoñanzas A.Name: Ignacio Antoñanzas A.Chief Executive Officer/s/ Eduardo Escaffi J.Name: Eduardo Escaffi J.Chief Financial Officer
|   | 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/                  John W. Price |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| John      W. Price                                                                             |
| President      and Chief Executive Officer                                                     |
| August      7, 2009                                                                            |

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

No. DA 21-0409

STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee,

v.

STEVEN WAYNE KEEFE,

Petitioner and Appellant.

__________________________________________________________________

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF

__________________________________________________________________

In light of Petitioner/Appellant’s unopposed motion and declaration in 

support, and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Appellant is granted an extension of 

time to and including March 16, 2022, within which to prepare, serve, and file his 

reply brief. No further extension will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 24 2022

02/24/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0409
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-62952) of Corporate Property Associates 12
Incorporated of our report dated March 20, 2003 relating to the consolidated
financial statements, which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which
is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the
incorporation by reference of our report dated March 20, 2003 relating to the
financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New York, New York
March 26, 2003
946 A.2d 638

#### JULIA RIBAUDO SENIOR SERVICES, Respondent v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 3, 2008.

*AMENDED ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 3rd day of April 2008, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

> Whether the Commonwealth Court erred in concluding that an administrative agency’s notice that clearly advises the recipient of the effective date of the agency’s action, but that does not specifically designate a “date of mailing,” is insufficient to begin the appeal period? If the notice is sufficient, is the recipient entitled to an appeal *nunc pro tunc?*
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00409

- CR

Carmelo Ramirez Ponce

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 89th District Court

o f Wichita County (52,098

- C )

July 23, 2015

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SE COND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot

______________ Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

JS/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PANCHOS CORPORATION, a Florida

corporation,

 Plaintiff-counterdefendant 

 - Appellee,

 v.

GUADALUPE BEDOYA GONZALEZ;

ANA MARIA JOSEFINA BOJALIL

BEDOYA,

 Defendants-counterclaimants 

 - Appellants,

 and

SIMON LOPEZ, an individual; TEATRO

LOS PINOS, a business entity,

 Defendants.

No. 07-56258

D.C. No. CV-03-03002-GPS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

George P. Schiavelli, District Judge, Presiding

FILED

JAN 22 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly,

counterclaimants’ request for oral argument is denied.

JS/Research 2 07-56258

Submitted January 11, 2010** 

Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Guadalupe Bedoya Gonzalez and Ana Maria Josefina Bojalil Bedoya appeal

from the district court’s order dismissing their counterclaim pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review for an abuse of discretion, Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 2002), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the counterclaim

because counterclaimants failed to comply fully with the court’s order to “proceed

by default” after the court imposed less drastic sanctions and warned them that

noncompliance would result in dismissal. See id. at 642 (listing factors that a

district court must weigh before dismissing an action under Rule 41(b)). 

We decline to consider whether the district court abused its discretion by

denying the motions for reconsideration under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) because the

issue was not argued on appeal. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350

F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (deeming abandoned issues raised but not argued on
JS/Research 3 07-56258

appeal).

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-08-174-CV

HUSSAIN ABDULWAHAB, INDIVIDUALLY 		                APPELLANT	

AND D/B/A FURNITURE GALAXY AND BAZAAR

	V.

SAM'S REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM THE 153rd DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

	Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial and a notice of appeal from the trial court’s January 28, 2008 “Final Judgment.”  The trial court subsequently granted Appellant’s motion for new trial on April 24, 2008, while it still had plenary jurisdiction over the case.  See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(e).

	On April 30, 2008, we informed the parties that it appeared the trial court’s granting of the motion for new trial rendered this appeal moot and that the appeal would be dismissed as moot unless, on or before May 16, 2008, any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  Appellant responded in a letter filed with this court on May 5, 2008, indicating that he desired withdrawal of his notice of appeal.2  Appellant filed this letter with the trial court and copied this court, without a motion.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

	Therefore, on this court’s own motion, we dismiss the appeal as moot.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). 

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:  MCCOY, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J.

DELIVERED:  May 22, 2008
#### Ralph STAINO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-6232.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 9, 2007.

Decided: March 29, 2007.

Ralph Staino, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Office of The United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ralph Staino, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Staino v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, No.*5:04-hc-00962-FL (E.D.N.C. Dec. 5, 2005; Jan. 26, 2006). 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.*
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS BEING MADE TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1349), WHICH CARRIES WITH IT CERTAIN CRIMINAL PENALTIES IN THE EVENT OF A
KNOWING OR WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION.

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC  20549

         Re:  SOLA International Inc.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         In accordance with the requirements of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 USC 1349), each of the undersigned hereby
certifies that:

                  (i)      this Annual Report on Form 10-K fully complies with
         the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
         Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

                  (ii)     the information contained in this report fairly
         presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
         of operations of Sola International Inc.

Dated as of this 13th day of June, 2003.

/s/ Jeremy C. Bishop                         /s/ Steven M. Neil
--------------------------------------       -----------------------------------
Jeremy C. Bishop                             Steven M. Neil
President and Chief Executive Officer        Executive Vice President and
                                             Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to SOLA International Inc. and will be retained by SOLA International
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0409 STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent an d Appellee, v. STEVEN WAYNE KEEFE,

Petitioner and Appell an

t .

__________________________________________________________________ **[PROPOSED] ORDER ON UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF** 

**TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF**

__________________________________________________________________ In light of Petitioner/Appellant’s unopposed motion and declaration in support, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including March 16, 2022, within which to prepare, serve, and file his reply brief. No further extension will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 24 2022

02/24/2022
Case Number: DA 21-0409