alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

             (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF

                          TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)


     Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of InkSure Technologies Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

     The Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the "Form
10-QSB") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in
the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.




      Dated:  November 9, 2005           /s/ Elie Housman
                                         ----------------
                                         Elie Housman, Chief Executive Officer





      Dated:  November 9, 2005           /s/ Eyal Bigon
                                         --------------
                                         Eyal Bigon, Chief Financial Officer


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### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 01-4934



# 
T AMMY R OSE D OVE ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

William L. Osteen, District Judge.

(CR-00-331) Submitted: June 4, 2002 Decided: June 25, 2002 Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSELUrs Roland Gsteiger, HORTON & GSTEIGER, P.L.L.C., WinstonSalem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, UnitedStates Attorney, Robert M. Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM:Tammy Rose Dove pleaded guilty to an indictment charging conspiracy to make, possess or utter forged securities in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 513 (West 2000). She received no term of imprisonment, but instead was sentenced to a term of supervised release. Doveadmittedly violated the terms of her supervised release. At her revocation hearing, the district court departed from the guideline range of 3 to 9 months and sentenced Dove to 16 months imprisonment. The court based its departure on verbally abusive remarks Dove directed towards members of the Probation Office. We review a district court’s revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Davis , 53 F.3d 638, 642-43(4th Cir. 1995). The district court need only find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a preponderance of the evidence. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). Moreover, if the court has considered the relevant factors and the applicable policy statements, it has the discretion to impose a sentence outside the ranges set out in the sentencing guidelines. See Davis at 642-43. Dove argues that she did not receive sufficient notice of the allegations that she verbally abused probation officers prior to the supervised releaserevocation hearing. Dove, however, cites no authority for the proposition that she was entitled to notice of all conduct the court might consider in imposing sentence following a concededly proper finding that revocation was warranted. In any event, we note that the petition for revocation filed by the Probation Office in fact described in detail the conduct forming the basis for the court’s decision to depart from the guideline range. Accordingly, we hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in departing from the guideline range and sentencing Dove to sixteenmonths imprisonment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the dis2 U NITED S TATES v. D OVEtrict court. 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

3 U NITED S TATES v. D OVE
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Bulletins and Articles Published by Bureau of Labor Statistics: A Selected List of References

              																	Johnson, Elizabeth A.					 and 	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Bulletins and Articles Published by Bureau of Labor Statistics: A Selected List of References : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 614*,												Washington, D.C: 								U.S. G.P.O., 										June 1935,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4136,			accessed on September 21, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### § 36.103 What are the requirements for multipurpose spaces in homeliving programs?

Homeliving programs must provide adequate areas for sleeping, study, recreation, and related activities.
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

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 Consolidated Energy, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Barry W. Tackett, Principal 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 (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/ Barry W. Tackett
Barry W. Tackett, Principal Financial Officer

Date: August 22, 2005


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### § 170.403 What TTP funds can be used for transportation planning?

Funds as defined in 23 U.S.C. 202(c) are allocated to an Indian Tribal government to carry out transportation planning. Tribes may also identify transportation planning as a priority use for their TTP Tribal share formula funds. In both cases, the fund source and use must be clearly identified on a FHWA-approved TTPTIP.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of 24/7 Real Media, Inc. (the “**Company**”) on Form 10-Q for the periodending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “**Report**”), I,Norman Blashka, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 

August 14, 2003

 

 
|   | /s/  Norman M. Blashka                            |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Executive  Vice President and Chief  Financial Officer |
|   | (Principal  Financial and Accounting  Officer)         |

 

----
G - 99
G - 100
G - 101
G - 102
G - 103
G - 104
G - 105
G - 106
G - 107
G - 108
G - 109
G - 110
G - 111
G - 112
G - 113
G - 114
G - 115
G - 116
G - 117
G - 118
G - 119
G - 120
G - 121
G - 122
G - 123
G - 124
G - 125
G - 126
G - 127
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 

G - 128

G - 129
G - 130
G - 131
G - 132
G - 133
G - 134
G - 135
G - 136
G - 137
G - 138
G - 139
G - 140
G - 141
G - 142
G - 143
G - 144
G - 145
G - 146

G - 147
G - 148
G - 149
G - 150
G - 151
G - 152
G - 153
G - 154
G - 155
G - 156
G - 157
G - 158
G - 159
G - 160
G - 161
G - 162
G - 163
G - 164
G - 165
G - 166
G - 167
G - 168
G - 169
G - 170
G - 171
G - 172
G - 173
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 

G - 174
G - 175
G - 176
G - 177
G - 178
G - 179
G - 180
G - 181
G - 182
G - 183
G - 184
G - 185
G - 186
G - 187
G - 188
G - 189
G - 190
G - 191
G - 192
G - 193
G - 194
G - 195
G - 196
G - 197
G - 198
G - 199
G - 200
G - 201
G - 202
G - 203
G - 204
G - 205
G - 206
G - 207
G - 208
G - 209
G - 210
G - 211
G - 212
G - 213
G - 214
G - 215
G - 216
G - 217
G - 218
G - 219
G - 220
G - 221
G - 222
G - 223
G - 224
G - 225
G - 226
G - 227
G - 228
G - 229
G - 230
G - 231
G - 232
G - 233
G - 234
G - 235
G - 236
G - 237
G - 238
G - 239
G - 240
G - 241
G - 242
G - 243
G - 244
G - 245
G - 246
G - 247
G - 248
G - 249
G - 250
G - 251
G - 252
G - 253
G - 254
G - 255
G - 256
G - 257
G - 258
G - 259
G - 260
G - 261
G - 262
G - 263
G - 264
G - 265
G - 266
G - 267
G - 268
G - 269
G - 270
G - 271
G - 272
G - 273
G - 274
G - 275
G - 276
G - 277
G - 278
G - 279
G - 280
G - 281
G - 282
G - 283
G - 284
G - 285
G - 286
G - 287
G - 288
G - 289
G - 290
G - 291
G - 292
G - 293
G - 294
G - 295
G - 296
G - 297
G - 298
G - 299
G - 300
G - 301
G - 302
G - 303
G - 304
G - 305
G - 306
G - 307
G - 308
G - 309
G - 310
G - 311
G - 312
G - 313
G - 314
G - 315
G - 316
G - 317
G - 318
G - 319
G - 320
G - 321
G - 322
G - 323
G - 324
G - 325
G - 326
G - 327
G - 328
G - 329
G - 330
G - 331
G - 332
G - 333
G - 334
G - 335
G - 336
G - 337
G - 338
G - 339
G - 340
G - 341
G - 342
G - 343
G - 344
G - 345
G - 346
G - 347
G - 348
G - 349
G - 350
G - 351
G - 352
G - 353
G - 354

G - 355
G - 356
G - 357
G - 358
G - 359
G - 360
G - 361
G - 362
G - 363
G - 364
G - 365
G - 366
G - 367
G - 368
G - 369
G - 370
G - 371
G - 372
G - 373
G - 374
G - 375
G - 376
G - 377
G - 378
G - 379
G - 380
G - 381
G - 382
G - 383
G - 384
G - 385
G - 386
G - 387
G - 388
G - 389
G - 390
G - 391
G - 392
G - 393
# C_2006154EN.01002901.xml

| 1.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/29

---

Action brought on 9 May 2006 — Chassagne v Commission

(Case F-56/06)

(2006/C 154/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Olivier Chassagne (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodriques, Y. Minatchy and A. Jaume, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the applicant's career development report for 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the applicant's career development report for 2004;

| — | annul the Directorate-General's decision allocating priority points during the 2005 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Directorate-General's decision allocating priority points during the 2005 promotion exercise;

| — | annul the appointing authority's decisions of 30 January 2006 and 14 March 2006 rejecting the applicant's complains against the abovementioned decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the appointing authority's decisions of 30 January 2006 and 14 March 2006 rejecting the applicant's complains against the abovementioned decisions;

| — | award nominal damages of one euro for professional harm and one euro for non-pecuniary harm arising from the adoption of the contested decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

award nominal damages of one euro for professional harm and one euro for non-pecuniary harm arising from the adoption of the contested decisions;

| — | order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant relies first of all on the unlawfulness of the General implementing provisions of Articles 43 and 44 of the Staff Regulations.

He claims, next, that there has been a breach of a number of procedural requirements, such as the rights of the defence, the obligation to state reasons and compliance with the rules of procedure.

The applicant further maintains that the administration has made a number of manifest errors of assessment, notably in the context of considering comparative merits and in allocating priority points.

Last, in the applicant's submission, the defendant has infringed the principle of sound administration.

---
### §9562. Clothing

The President may prescribe the quantity and kind of clothing to be issued annually to members of the Air Force and members of the Space Force.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 577; Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title IX, §923(e)(3), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 3816.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 9562 | 10:831. | R.S. 1296 (less 1st 9 words). |

The words "members of the Air Force" are substituted for the words "troops of the United States".

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2021—Pub. L. 116–283 inserted "and members of the Space Force" after "the Air Force".
# C_2006165EN.01002602.xml

| 15.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/26

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 May 2006 — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-134/05) (1)

1

(European Social Fund - Recovery by means of set-off against Community debts - Time-barred - Interest for late payment - Action for annulment - Objection of inadmissibility - Challengeable act - Inadmissible)

(2006/C 165/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J. Devadder, Agent, and J.P. Buyle and C. Steyaert, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris, G. Wilms and A. Weimar, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission's decision contained in its letter of 19 January 2005, by which the Commission replied to the letters from the Kingdom of Belgium regarding funds paid to various Belgian bodies under the European Social Fund.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.

1

---
### §876a. Art. 76a. Leave required to be taken pending review of certain court-martial convictions

Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, an accused who has been sentenced by a court-martial may be required to take leave pending completion of action under this subchapter if the sentence includes an unsuspended dismissal or an unsuspended dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge. The accused may be required to begin such leave on the date of the entry of judgment under section 860c of this title (article 60c) or at any time after such date, and such leave may be continued until the date on which action under this subchapter is completed or may be terminated at any earlier time.

(Added Pub. L. 97–81, §2(c)(1), Nov. 20, 1981, 95 Stat. 1087; amended Pub. L. 98–209, §5(g), Dec. 6, 1983, 97 Stat. 1400; Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LIX, §5338, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2937.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2016—Pub. L. 114–328 struck out ", as approved under section 860 of this title (article 60)," after "if the sentence" and substituted "of the entry of judgment under section 860c of this title (article 60c)" for "on which the sentence is approved under section 860 of this title (article 60)".

1983—Pub. L. 98–209 substituted "under section 860 of this title (article 60)" for "under section 864 or 865 of this title (article 64 or 65) by the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction" and "by the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction", respectively.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2016 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–328 effective on Jan. 1, 2019, as designated by the President, with implementing regulations and provisions relating to applicability to various situations, see section 5542 of Pub. L. 114–328 and Ex. Ord. No. 13825, set out as notes under section 801 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1983 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–209 effective first day of eighth calendar month beginning after Dec. 6, 1983, but not to apply to any case in which the findings and sentence were adjudged by a court-martial before that date, and the proceedings in any such case to be held in the same manner and with the same effect as if such amendments had not been enacted, see section 12(a)(1), (4) of Pub. L. 98–209, set out as a note under section 801 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section to take effect at end of 60-day period beginning on Nov. 20, 1981, to apply to each member whose sentence by court-martial is approved on or after Jan. 20, 1982, under section 864 or 865 of this title by the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction under the provisions of such section as it existed on the day before the effective date of the Military Justice Act of 1983 (Pub. L. 98–209), or under section 860 of this title by the officer empowered to act on the sentence on or after that effective date, see section 7(a), (b)(1) of Pub. L. 97–81, set out as a note under section 706 of this title.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 528 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         June 21, 2000.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 90) withdrawing the 
approval of the United States from the Agreement establishing the World Trade 
Organization. The joint resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. 
The joint resolution shall be debatable for two hours of debate equally divided 
among and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, Representative Paul of Texas, and Representative 
DeFazio of Oregon or their designees. Pursuant to section 152 of the Trade Act 
of 1974 and section 125 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, the previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage 
without intervening motion.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
§ 502.14 Key employee. *Key employee* means: ( a ) Any person who performs one or more of the following functions for the gaming operation: ( 1 ) Bingo caller;
( 2 ) Counting room supervisor;
( 3 ) Chief of security;
( 4 ) Floor manager;
( 5 ) Pit boss;
( 6 ) Dealer;
( 7 ) Croupier;
( 8 ) Approver of credit;
( 9 ) Custodian of gaming systems as defined in 25 CFR 547.2 and similar class III systems, gaming cash or gaming cash equivalents, gaming supplies or gaming system records;
( 10 ) Custodian of surveillance systems or surveillance system records.
( b ) Any gaming operation employee authorized by the gaming operation for unescorted access to secured gaming areas designated as secured gaming areas by the TGRA;
( c ) If not otherwise licensed as a key employee or primary management official, the four persons most highly compensated by the gaming operation;
( d ) Any other employee of the gaming enterprise as documented by the tribe as a key employee.
[88 FR 55370, Aug. 15, 2023]
Exhibit 10.3

LOGO

June 24, 2008

Mr. John J. Legere

Chief Executive Officer

Global Crossing Limited

200 Park Avenue

Florham Park, New Jersey 07932

Re: First Amendment to Employment Agreement

Dear Mr. Legere:

Reference is made to the Employment
Agreement dated as of August 15, 2006 (the Agreement) between you and Global Crossing Limited (the Company). Capitalized terms used in this letter shall have the respective meanings set forth in the Agreement.

Effective June 24, 2008, the Agreement is amended as follows:



| | 1. | Section 6(c)(ii) of the Agreement is amended by deleting therefrom the references to two (2) times the sum of Base Salary plus Annual Bonus and for a
period of two (2) years following the date of such termination and inserting, in lieu thereof, three (3) times the sum of Base Salary plus Annual Bonus and for a period of three (3) years following the date of
such termination, respectively.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Section 6(c)(iii) of the Agreement is amended by deleting therefrom the references to one (1) times the sum of Base Salary plus Annual Bonus and for a
period of one (1) year following the date of such termination and inserting, in lieu thereof, three (3) times the sum of Base Salary plus Annual Bonus and for a period of three (3) years following the date of
such termination, respectively.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Except as specifically set forth herein, all provisions of the Agreement shall
continue in full force and effect.

Please confirm your agreement to the foregoing by executing this First Amendment in the space indicated
below.



Very truly yours,GLOBAL CROSSING LIMITEDBy:

/s/ Neil BaruaName:

Neil BaruaTitle:

Chief Administrative Officer




|                         |  | 
|------------------------ |  | 
|ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:
|                        
|/s/ John J. Legere      
|John J. Legere