alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.3


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES‐OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Keith S. Franz, Chief Financial Officer, in connection with the Annual Report of CĪON Investment Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date: March 15, 2018

















/s/ Keith S. Franz


Keith S. Franz


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


CĪON Investment Corporation
#### John Paul HARRIS, v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 15063.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 23, 1954.

William M. Steger, U. S. Atty., Harlon E. Martin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Tyler, Tex., for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, C. J., and BORAH and RIVES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a Section 2255 petition to set aside a judgment of conviction. What and all that is in question here is whether the district judge correctly determined, after hearing witnesses including the petitioner, that there was no factual basis for petitioner’s claim that the plea of guilty he had entered, and on the basis of which he had been sentenced, was entered voluntarily and understanding^ or was extorted from him by threats or promises.

In an unpublished opinion filed as findings of fact and conclusions of law, the district judge, carefully discussing and quite correctly weighing the testimony, determined the issue against the petitioner.

The issues of fact raised by the motion to vacate the judgment and sentence and to withdraw the plea of guilty were for the trial court to resolve, and its decision may not be overturned1 on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous and constitutes an abuse of discretion.

Without undertaking to set out the facts as disclosed by the full record made, it is sufficient to say that a consideration of the almost incredible testimony of the petitioner, in the light of the opposed testimony and of the record as a whole, leaves us in no doubt that there was no error in the findings, and that the judgment denying the petition must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. Friedman v. U. S., 8 Cir., 200 F.2d 690; U. S. v. Shneer, 3 Cir., 194 F.2d 598; Stidham v. U. S., 8 Cir., 170 F.2d 294. Cf. Williams v. U. S., 5 Cir., 192 F.2d 39.
#### Emmons County *vs.*Alex. McKenzie, *et al.*

Opinion filed November 13, 1900.

Appeal from District Court, Emmons County; *Winchester,*J.

*George M. Register*and *Cochrane & Corliss,*for appellant.

*FI. A. Armstrong*and *Stevens & Allen,*for respondents.

Per Curiam.

The controlling questions in this case' were involved and decided in the case of *Emmons Co.*v. *Thompson*(decided this term) 9 N. D. 598, 84 N. W. Rep. 385. The order *612appealed from is in all things reversed, and the District Court is directed to enter an order reversing the same, and also to enter an order denying the application made herein to vacate said judgment and tax sale, with costs of both courts to appellant.

(84 N. W. Rep. 1117.)
#### § 11.419 Unauthorized use of automobiles and other vehicles.

A person commits a misdemeanor if he or she operates another person's automobile, airplane, motorcycle, motorboat, or other motor-propelled vehicle without consent of the owner. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor reasonably believed that the owner would have consented to the operation had he or she known of it.
§ 117.2 Payment of taxes of adult Indians. The superintendent may cause to be paid out of any money heretofore accrued or hereafter accruing to the credit of any adult Indian all taxes of every kind and character for which such Indian is or may be liable before paying to or for such person any funds as required by law. All checks in payment of taxes shall be made payable to the proper collector. For the purpose of establishing a fund with which to meet the payment of such taxes when due, the Superintendent may cause the funds of an adult Indian to be hypothecated in the following manner: ( a ) For the payment of ad valorem taxes, one-fourth of the estimated amount ad valorem taxes from each quarterly payment unless this procedure would cause the obligation of more than 25 percent of such quarterly payments, in which event the necessary additional funds shall be retained from other allowance funds payable to such person under the law. If there be no other allowance funds available, or if the funds from these sources are insufficient, one-fourth of the estimated amount of such ad valorem taxes may be obligated from each quarterly payment. If an Indian who is liable for ad valorem taxes has no allowance funds, or such funds are insufficient for the payment thereof, surplus funds may be used for such payment.
( b ) ( 1 ) For the payment of income taxes, one-half of the estimated amount of income taxes from each semi-annual payment of interest on deposits, but if such interest payments are insufficient to meet this obligation, additional funds shall be retained from interest on investments, rentals, or other allowance funds.
( 2 ) Whenever funds are withheld for the purpose of establishing a fund to meet the payment of taxes, the Indian shall be notified of the action taken.
§ 1187.43 May OIED waive the requirement for the non-Federal contribution? OIED may waive the requirement for the non-Federal contribution, in whole or in part, for one or more years of the initial IBIP grant award if OIED determines that the waiver is appropriate based on: ( a ) The awardee's ability to provide non-Federal contributions;
( b ) The quality of business incubation services; and
( c ) The likelihood that one or more reservation communities served by the awardee will not receive similar services elsewhere because of the remoteness or other reasons that inhibit the provision of business and entrepreneurial development services.
ROBERT GRIFFIN,

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. 1D14-3523

_____________________________/

Opinion filed January 6, 2015.

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

John H. Skinner, Judge.

Robert Griffin, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Donna A. Gerace, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.
155 So.2d 604

#### Bernard S. LEE v. STATE.

3 Div. 45.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 25, 1963.

Fred Gray and Solomon S. Seay, Jr., Montgomery, Jack Greenberg and Leroy D. Clark, New York City, and Louis H. Poliak, New Haven, Conn., for petitioner.

Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and Leslie Hall, Asst. Atty. Gen., opposed.

COLEMAN, Justice.

Petition of Bernard S. Lee for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in Lee v. State, 155 So.2d 604.

Writ denied.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON and GOODWYN, JJ., concur.
§ 1000.337 Does the Tribe/Consortium have to return property used in the operation of a retroceded program? On the effective date of any retrocession, the Tribe/Consortium must return all property and equipment, and title thereto: ( a ) That was acquired under the AFA for the program being retroceded; and
( b ) That has a per item value in excess of $5,000 at the time of the retrocession, or as otherwise provided in the AFA.
Document

Exhibit 10.6
CERTAIN INFORMATION IDENTIFIED WITH [***] HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THIS EXHIBIT BECAUSE IT IS BOTH (I) NOT MATERIAL AND (II) IS OF THE TYPE THAT THE REGISTRANT TREATS AS PRIVATE OR CONFIDENTIAL.


August 6, 2021
Novavax, Inc.
21 Firstfield Road
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
Attention:    [***], Senior Vice President, Commercial Strategy
Subject:    Modification No. 10 to Project Agreement No. 01; MCDC2011-001 
Reference:    MCDC Base Agreement No. 2020-530
Dear [***]:
In accordance with the terms and conditions of the referenced MCDC Base Agreement, Modification No. 10 hereby  amends Project Agreement No. 01 as follows:
DESCRIPTION OF MODIFICATION
1)    The Technical and Administrative Representatives clause of the Project Agreement is hereby amended to read as indicated in bold below:
10. TECHNICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REPRESENTATIVES
The following technical and contractual representatives of the Parties are hereby designated for this Project Agreement. Either party may change their designated representatives by written notification to the other.
MCDC CMF Contractual Representative:
MCDC Contracts
Advanced Technology International 
315 Sigma Drive
Summerville, SC  29486
Email: [***]
Phone: [***]
						
	Government Technical Representatives:
Agreements Officer Representative (AOR):
[***]
Email: [***]
Phone: [***]
	Alternate AOR:
[***]
Email: [***]
Phone: [***]

	Project Agreement Holder’s Representatives:

	Technical Representative:
[***]
21 Firstfield Road
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
Email: [***]
Phone: [***]
	Contractual Representative:
[***]
21 Firstfield Road
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
Email: [***]
Phone: [***]



110228685_4







Except as provided herein, all Terms and Conditions of the referenced MCDC Base Agreement, Project Agreement and preceding modifications remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
This modification is issued unilaterally. The Project Agreement Holder is not required to sign to finalize this action.
Advanced Technology International


						
	By:	/s/[***]
	Name:	[***]
	Title:	Subcontracts Administrator
	Date:	8/6/2021




110228685_4
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Henry HOUSTON, Janie Pearl Houston, and Mary Houston Williams, Appellees.

No. 12059.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 12, 1954.

Warren E. Burger, Washington, D. C., Fred Elledge, Jr., Nashville, Tenn. (Samuel D. Slade and Benjamin Forman, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.

Frierson & Queener, W. A. Richardson and Thos. E. Humphrey, Jr., Columbia, Tenn., for appellee.

Before ALLEN, MARTIN and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this case the district court reviewed an award of indemnity made by the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs under the Servicemen’s Indemnity Act of 1951, 38 U.S.C.A. § 851 et seq. The court entered a judgment directing the United States to pay the indemnity to specified parties and to pay a fee to the attorneys of the successful parties. It is evident from a careful examination of the relevant statutes that unlike the National Service Life Insurance Act, 38 U.S.C.A. § 817, a district court is withbut jurisdiction to review an award made by the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs under the Servicemen’s Indemnity Act of 1951, 38 U.S.C.A. § lla-2. See Brewer v. United States, D.C.Tenn., 117 F.Supp. 842. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed with direction to dismiss the complaint.
#### § 1000.196 What must be included in a finding by BIA or in a claim by an affected Tribe/Consortium or Tribal organization regarding the issue of a limitation or reduction of services?

An affected Tribe/Consortium must include in its claim a written explanation identifying the alleged limitation or reduction of services, contracts, or funding for which it is eligible. A finding by BIA must likewise identify the limitation or reduction.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

**JTF - Micronesia Menu**

                        - JTF-M Leadership
                        - JTF-M Press Room                            - News
                          - Stories
                          More
                        - JTF-M Documents
                        - JTF-M Contact Us

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# New Deputy Commander Position Accelerates PACAF’s Allies and Partners Connection

By Tech. Sgt. Jimmie D. PikePacific Air Force Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
#### § 117.33 Signature of illiterates.

An Indian who cannot write shall be required to endorse checks payable to his order and sign receipts or other documents by making an imprint of the ball of the right thumb (or the left, if he has lost his right) after his name. This imprint shall be clear and distinct, showing the central whorl and striations and witnessed by two reputable persons whose addresses shall be given opposite or following their names. An Indian may sign by marking “X” before two witnesses where he is unable to attach his thumb mark for physical reasons.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8777-8778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3406]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated October 19, 2010, and published in the Federal 
Register on October 26, 2010, 75 FR 65659, Cedarburg Pharmaceuticals, 
Inc., 870 Badger Circle, Grafton, Wisconsin 53024, made application by 
renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered 
as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled 
substances:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370)...............  I
Dihydromorphine (9145).....................  I
Dihydrocodeine (9120)......................  II
Oxycodone (9143)...........................  II
Hydromorphone (9150).......................  II
Hydrocodone (9193).........................  II
Remifentanil (9739)........................  II
Sufentanil (9740)..........................  II
Fentanyl (9801)............................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances 
in bulk for distribution to its customers.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
Cedarburg Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to manufacture the listed basic classes 
of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this 
time. DEA has investigated Cedarburg Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to ensure 
that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. 
The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's 
physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance 
with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and 
history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance 
with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted

[[Page 8778]]

registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled 
substances listed.

    Dated: February 4, 2011.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-3406 Filed 2-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JORGE LUIS SANCHEZ, LEIDELIN ) SANCHEZ and PARADIGM ) PARTNERS, LLC, ) ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-2152 ) WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, ) as SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE to U.S. ) BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as ) Trustee for Master Asset Securitization ) Trust 2004-9, Mortgage Pass-Through ) Certificates, Series 2004-9 ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed September 30, 2020. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Ralph C. Stoddard, Judge. Niles B. Whitten, Gainesville, for Appellants. James H. Wyman of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Coral Gables, for Appellee- 2 -

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., and CASE, JAMES, R., ASSOCIATE SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.
1 

### Moran, Nicole

From: Christine Mennicke <cmennicke@kdheks.gov> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 3:31 PM To: Moran, Nicole Subject: RE: Comment Letter - KS' Draft CCR Part 256 Plan

Nicole,

I have questions on a few of your comments:



### Section 256.60: EPA suggests Kansas provide some information on how they document public comme nts and their response to comments. Section 256.62(a): EPA suggests KS provide information on how they document public comment on regulations and their responses to those comments.

Is this what you’re looking for?

“ 

### The responsiveness summary contains all comments received during the public comment per iod and hearing as well as KDHE’s response to comments. It will be made available on the KDHE web site, and s ent to individuals who submitted comments.”

Section 256.64: EPA suggests that KS reference any public notification that occurs as part of their compliance and enforcement procedures for the purpose of this provision.

Will States be submitting a list of CCR facilities that are don’t meet deadlines to EPA for inclusion on an open dump inventory?

Thanks,

Christine Mennicke Environmental Scientist Bureau of Waste Management Kansas Department of Health and Environment 785-296-0724

From: Moran, Nicole [mailto:moran.nicole@epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 3:18 PM To: William Bider; Christine Mennicke Cc: Toensing, Don Subject: Comment Letter - KS' Draft CCR Part 256 Plan

Bill, Enclosed is an electronic copy of EPA’s Comment Let ter for the State of Kansas Draft Coal Combustion R esiduals Part 256
Plan submittal. The official letter is in the mail . Please make note that there were a few changes t o the checklist that you received yesterday following OGC’s review. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact myself or Don Toensing. Thanks,
Nicole

Nicole Moran US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 Air and Waste Management Division Waste Enforcement and Materials Management Branch2 11201 Renner Boulevard Lenexa, KS 66219 913-551-7641 (phone) moran.nicole@epa.gov
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

      STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I, William E. McGlashan, Jr., the chief executive officer of Critical Path, Inc.
(the "Company"), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title
18 of the United States Code that, to my knowledge,:

(i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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

Date: March 4, 2004                /s/ William E. McGlashan, Jr.
                                -------------------------------------
                                     William E. McGlashan, Jr.
                                Chief Executive Officer and Chairman

A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
has been provided to Critical Path, Inc. and will be retained by Critical Path,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

------------------
(1) The material contained in this Exhibit 32.1 is not deemed "filed" with the
SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company
under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether
made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.