alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1





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 Actuate Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter I. Cittadini, 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:





(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/    PETER I.
CITTADINIPeter I. Cittadini Chief Executive Officer August 12, 2002
### [§2539a. Renumbered §4884]
§ 158.703 Designating and staffing assignments. ( a ) *Designating assignments.* The Department designates assignments by defining combinations of CTMS qualifications and DHS-CS cybersecurity work associable with qualified positions. CTMS policy implementing this section addresses procedures for DHS organizations to designate assignments, including as a result of designating qualified positions as described in § 158.702.
( b ) *Staffing assignments.* The Department staffs assignments by: ( 1 ) Matching assignments with DHS-CS employees as described in paragraph (d) of this section;
( 2 ) Matching assignments with newly appointed individuals as described in paragraph (c) of this section; or
( 3 ) Seeking to recruit individuals and establish new qualified positions under the talent acquisition system described in § 158.501 and then matching assignments with newly appointed individuals as described in paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) *Initial assignment.* Upon appointment of an individual to a qualified position, the Department matches the individual with an assignment based on the alignment of the individual's CTMS qualifications, determined under the assessment program described in § 158.520, to the CTMS qualifications of an assignment. In matching an individual with an initial assignment, the Department may also consider: ( 1 ) Input from the individual;
( 2 ) Input from DHS organizations;
( 3 ) Mission-related requirements; and
( 4 ) Strategic talent priorities.
( d ) *Subsequent assignments.* The Department matches DHS-CS employees with assignments subsequent to employees' initial assignments, as necessary. ( 1 ) The Department matches a DHS-CS employee with a subsequent assignment based on the alignment of the employee's CTMS qualifications with the CTMS qualifications of an assignment. In matching a DHS-CS employee with a subsequent assignment, the Department may also consider: ( i ) Input from the employee;
( ii ) Input from DHS organizations, especially the primary DHS organization of the employee's current assignment;
( iii ) Information about the employee from the performance management program described in § 158.802 and the career development program described in § 158.803;
( iv ) Mission-related requirements; and
( v ) Strategic talent priorities.
( 2 ) A DHS-CS employee may have multiple assignments throughout the employee's service in a qualified position, but may only have one assignment at a time. A DHS-CS employee's subsequent assignments may have assignment information, described in § 158.706(e), that is different than the assignment information of the employee's initial assignment, including primary DHS organization.
( 3 ) In alignment with the career development program described in § 158.803 and based on information from development reviews described in § 158.806 the Department communicates with DHS-CS employees on an ongoing basis about subsequent assignment opportunities;
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11525-11526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4758]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORTY COMMISSION

[NRC-2011-0006]


Sunshine Federal Register Notice

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

DATES: Week of February 28, 2011.

PLACE: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Public and Closed.

ADDITIONAL ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED 

Week of February 28, 2011

Monday, February 28, 2011

2:30 p.m. Discussion of Management Issues (Closed--Ex. 2).
* * * * *
    * The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on 
short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call (recording)--(301) 
415-1292.

[[Page 11526]]

Contact person for more information: Rochelle Bavol, (301) 415-1651.
* * * * *

Additional Information

    By a vote of 5-0 on February 23 and 24, 2011, the Commission 
determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and Sec.  9.107(a) of the 
Commission's rules that the above referenced Discussion of Management 
Issues be held on February 28, 2011, with less than one week notice to 
the public.
* * * * *
    The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet 
at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/schedule.html.
* * * * *
    The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with 
disabilities, where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation 
to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or 
the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another 
format (e.g., braille, large print), please notify Bill Dosch, Chief, 
Work Life and Benefits Branch, at 301-415-6200, TDD: 301-415-2100, or 
by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#394e505555505854175d564a5a5179574b5a175e564f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9becf2f7f7f2faf6b5fff4e8f8f3dbf5e9f8b5fcf4ed">[email protected]</span></a>. Determinations on requests for 
reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
* * * * *
    This notice is distributed electronically to subscribers. If you no 
longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the 
distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, 
DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or send an e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#264247544a4348430851544f414e526648544508414950"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="412520332d242f246f363328262935012f33226f262e37">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: February 25, 2011.
Richard J. Laufer,
Technical Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-4758 Filed 2-28-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 522.4 Amendment approvals and disapprovals. ( a ) No later than 90 days after the submission of any amendment to a class II ordinance or resolution the Chair shall approve the amendment if the Chair finds that: ( 1 ) A tribe meets the amendment submission requirements of § 522.3(b); and
( 2 ) The amendment complies with § 522.5(b).
( b ) No later than 90 days after a tribe submits any amendment to a class II ordinance for approval, the Chair may disapprove the amendment if the Chair determines— ( 1 ) A tribe failed to comply with the amendment submission requirements of § 522.3; or
( 2 ) The amendment does not comply with § 522.5(b).
( c ) No later than 90 days after the submission of any amendment to a class III ordinance or resolution, the Chair shall approve the amendment if the Chair finds that— ( 1 ) A tribe meets the amendment submission requirements of § 522.3(b); and
( 2 ) The amendment complies with § 522.7(b) and (c).
( d ) No later than 90 days after a tribe submits any amendment to a class III ordinance for approval, the Chair may disapprove the amendment if the Chair determines that— ( 1 ) A tribal governing body did not adopt the amendment in compliance with the governing documents of the tribe;
( 2 ) The amendment does not comply with § 522.7(b) and (c); or
( 3 ) A tribal governing body was significantly and unduly influenced in the adoption of the amendment by a person having a direct or indirect financial interest in a management contract, a person having management responsibility for a management contract, or their agents.
( e ) The Chair shall notify a tribe of its right to appeal a disapproval under part 582 of this chapter. A disapproval shall be effective immediately unless appealed under part 582 of this chapter.
# C_2007052EN.01000302.xml

| 7.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4509 — Philips/PLI)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 52/04)

On 29 January 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4509. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4509. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
# C_2006261EN.01002302.xml

| 28.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/23

---

Action brought on 4 September 2006 — Torresan v OHIM — Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe (CANNABIS)

(Case T-234/06)

(2006/C 261/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Giampietro Torresan (Schonenfels, Switzerland) (represented by: Gianluca Recher, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 29 June 2006 in proceedings R 517/2005-2, notified by fax of 5 July 2006, and confirm the registration of the Community trade mark CANNABIS for Classes 32 and 33; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 29 June 2006 in proceedings R 517/2005-2, notified by fax of 5 July 2006, and confirm the registration of the Community trade mark CANNABIS for Classes 32 and 33;

| — | in any case, order the costs of all of the proceedings to be reimbursed, including those of the previous two appeals before OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any case, order the costs of all of the proceedings to be reimbursed, including those of the previous two appeals before OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘CANNABIS’ (application for registration No 1.073.349), for goods and services in Classes 32, 33 and 42.

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity:

Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: The applicant for the declaration of invalidity does not claim any trade mark right. The declaration of invalidity is applied for in respect of goods in Classes 32 (beer) and 33 (wine, spirits, liqueurs, sparkling wine, champagne).

Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for declaration of invalidity partially granted, annulment of the registration of the Community trade mark as regards the products claimed in Classes 32 and 33.

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement and misapplication of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and contradiction in the grounds of the contested decision.

Pleas in law:

---
-  Home 
-  Hazmat 

# In This Section

                      -  Hazardous Materials Standards & Rulemaking Overview 
                      -  International Program Overview 
                      -  PHMSA's Online CFR (oCFR) 
                      -  Rulemakings                          -  Overview 
                        -  Recently Published Rulemakings 
                        -  Archived Hazardous Materials Rulemakings (pre-1995) 
                      -  Petitions for Rulemaking 
                      -  Interpretations 
                      -  Regulations 
                      -  Preemption Determinations                          -  Overview 
                        -  Inconsistency Rulings 
                      -  Notices and Advisory Bulletins 
                      -  Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory Committee 
                      -  Hazardous Materials Information Center 

## Related Documents

                  -                                          PD-24R Decision                   

# PD-24(R): New Jersey prohibition against transporting blasting caps on the same motor vehicle with more than 5,000 lbs. of other commercial explosives
NOTICE OF FAILURE TO MAKE 

ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS

UNDER ERISA 4062(e)(4)

PBGC Form 4062(e)-04 

Approved OMB # 1212-0073

Expires 08/31/2025

This form is used to notify the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation of an employer’s failure to make an additional 

contribution pursuant to ERISA section 4062(e)(4). For questions regarding this form, contact (202) 229-4070 or 

4062e@pbgc.gov. 

Filing date of related PBGC Form 4062(e)-01: _ _/ _ _/_ _ _ _ 

Filing date of related PBGC Form 4062(e)-02: _ _/ _ _/_ _ _ _

IDENTIFYING INFORMATION

_______________________________________________

Plan name

_______________________________________________

Name of authorized contact at filer

_______________________________________________

Name of filer

_______________________________________________

Title of contact

_______________________________________________

Street address of filer

_______________________________________________

Email address of contact

_______________________________________________

City, State, Zip

_______________________________________________

Street address of contact

EIN of contributing sponsor Plan number

_______________________________________________

City, State, Zip

________________________________ _________

Telephone number of contact Ext

CONTRIBUTION INFORMATION 

_ _ / _ _ / _ _ _ _

Contribution due date

_________________

Contribution amount due 

Explain why contribution has not been paid. If additional space is needed, the explanation may be submitted as an 

attachment.
PBGC Form 4062(e)-04

FILING INFORMATION 

_ _ / _ _ / _ _ _ _

Notice due date

_ _ / _ _ / _ _ _ _

Notice filing date 

If filing is late (i.e. notice filing date is after the notice due date), explain below. If additional space is needed, the 

explanation may be submitted as an attachment.

CERTIFICATION 

I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information submitted in this filing is true, correct, and 

complete. In making this certification, I recognize that knowingly and willfully making false, fictitious, or fraudulent 

statements to the PBGC is punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Name and title of individual certifying form

_______________________________________________

Employer of individual certifying form

_______________________________________________

Email address of individual certifying form

_______________________________________________

Telephone number of individual certifying form

_______________________________________________

Signature of individual certifying form

_______________________________________________

Date signed
§ 84.006 Under what circumstances will the Secretary disapprove a contract or agreement that requires Secretarial approval under this part? ( a ) The Secretary will disapprove a contract or agreement that requires Secretarial approval under this part if the Secretary determines that such contract or agreement: ( 1 ) Violates federal law; or
( 2 ) Does not contain at least one of the following provisions that: ( i ) Provides for remedies in the event the contract or agreement is breached;
( ii ) References a tribal code, ordinance or ruling of a court of competent jurisdiction that discloses the right of the tribe to assert sovereign immunity as a defense in an action brought against the tribe; or
( iii ) Includes an express waiver of the right of the tribe to assert sovereign immunity as a defense in any action brought against the tribe, including a waiver that limits the nature of relief that may be provided or the jurisdiction of a court with respect to such an action.
( b ) The Secretary will consult with the Indian tribe as soon as practicable before disapproving a contract or agreement regarding the elements of the contract or agreement that may lead to disapproval.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                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 Link Plus Corporation (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, Jonathan P.
Gluckman, President and Chief Operating Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
that:

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

(2)      The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all
         material aspects, the financial condition and result of operations on
         the Company.



/s/ JOHATHAN P. GLUCKMAN
---------------------------------
Jonathan P. Gluckman, President
and Chief Operating Officer
# C_2006261EN.01001101.xml

| 28.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz (Germany) lodged on 3 August 2006 — Matthias Zerche v Landkreis Mittweida

(Case C-334/06)

(2006/C 261/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Matthias Zerche

Applicant:

Defendant: Landkreis Mittweida

Defendant:

Questions referred

Are the combined provisions of Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State within its territory may refuse to recognise a right to drive under a driving licence issued by another Member State where the holder of the foreign EU driving licence has previously, in the territory of the first Member State, had his driving licence withdrawn or cancelled for some reason, if the ban on the issue of a new driving licence in that Member State, with which that measure was coupled, had expired before the driving licence was issued in the other Member State and if it is to be concluded on the basis of objective evidence (non-residence in the Member State issuing the driving licence or the failure of an application for the national driving licence to be restored) that the only reason for acquiring the foreign EU driving licence was to circumvent the strict substantive requirements of national procedure for the restoration of a driving licence, particularly the need for a medical/psychological report?

1

---

(1)  OJ L 237, p. 1.

1

---
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 46155

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RACHELL LYNN RUDOLPH,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: April 10, 2019

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Peter G. Barton, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years with a one and onehalf-year determinate term for possession of methamphetamine, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenevieve C. Swinford, 

Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge;

and BRAILSFORD, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Rachell L. Rudolph pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-

2732(c). Prior to sentencing, Rudolph was charged with committing additional crimes in 

violation of the plea agreement. The district court imposed a unified seven-year sentence with a 

one and one-half-year determinate term. Rudolph appeals, contending that her sentence is 

excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-
2

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Rudolph’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.