alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### A. Fred. Grassly *et al. v.*Lyman L. Adams.

1. Amendment oe record in circuit *court—effect of, on appeal pending in Supreme Court.*Where the record filed in the Supreme Court shows a defective service on the defendant in the circuit court, and the sheriff, by leave of the circuit court, whilst the case is pending ' in the Supreme Court, amends his return so as to show a sufficient service, and that fact is made to appear by a supplemental record, filed in the Supreme Court, the error assigned on account of such defective service is obviated.

3. *Record—a certificate of the clerk copied, into the transcript is no part of the record.*A certificate of the clerk of a computation of damages *551made by him, and reciting that the court had referred the cause to him to assess the damages, although copied into the transcript, is not an order of the court, nor does it prove one, nor is it a part of the record.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Morgan county; the Hon. Cyrus Epler, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. Epler & Gallon, for the plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. Dummer *&*Brown, for the defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Sheldon

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The errors assigned on' this record are, that the return of service upon the summons, as to the defendant Grassly, is defective, in not showing service upon him ; that the allegation in the declaration of the assignment of the note sued on to the plaintiffs by the payee, was insufficient, in not stating the indorsement to have been under *the hand of the payee j*and that, under the statute of 1872, there was error in referring the cause to the clerk to assess the damages.

Whilst the cause has been pending in this court, an application has been duly made to the court below for leave to the sheriff to amend his return, which has been allowed, and the return amended so as to show a sufficient service, which has been made to appear by a supplemental transcript of the record. This obviates the error first assigned. *Hawes*v. *Hawes,*33 Ill. 286; *O’Conner*v. *Wilson,*57 id. 226.

Without considering the question of the sufficiency óf the special count in the respect indicated, it is enough to say, that the declaration contained the common counts, under which an assigned note might have been given- in evidence, and upon which the judgment might have been rendered. There is no bill of exceptions preserving the evidence in the case.

The record does not show that the court referred the cause to the clerk to assess the damages. All that appears in that respect is, that there is copied into the transcript a certificate *552signed by the clerk, showing a computation of the damages made by him, and reciting that the court had referred the cause to him to assess the damages. But this does not constitute an order of the court, or prove one. This certificate is no part of the record. The judgment order itself states that the “damages are by the court assessed upon evidence adduced.” We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
§ 98.11 Definitions. *Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.* The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the United States Department of Agriculture.
*Camelid.* All species of the family *Camelidae,* including camels, guanacos, llamas, alpacas, and vicunas.
*Cervid.* All members of the family *Cervidae* and hybrids, including deer, elk, moose, caribou, reindeer, and related species.
*Collection of embryos.* Embryos removed from a single donor dam in one operation.
*Embryo.* The initial stages of development of an animal, after collection from the natural mother and while it is capable of being transferred to a recipient dam, but not after it has been transferred to a recipient dam.
*Embryo collection unit.* Area or areas where the donor dam will be bred to produce embryos for importation into the United States, and where the embryos will be collected, processed, and stored pending shipment to the United States.
*Foreign Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory.* The Foreign Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
*Herd of origin.* The herd in which the donor dam is kept during the 60 days before the donor dam is required to be housed in an embryo collection unit, in accordance with § 98.17(a) of this subpart.
*Import.* To bring into the territorial limits of the United States.
*Inspector.* An employee of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service who is authorized to perform the function involved.
*Official veterinarian.* A full-time salaried veterinarian of the national government of the country of origin or a veterinarian employed by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and designated by APHIS to supervise or conduct procedures required by this subpart, and to certify that requirements of this subpart have been met.
*Person.* Any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, joint stock company, or other legal entity.
*Region.* Any defined geographic land area identifiable by geological, political, or surveyed boundaries. A region may consist of any of the following: ( 1 ) A national entity (country);
( 2 ) Part of a national entity (zone, county, department, municipality, parish, Province, State, etc.);
( 3 ) Parts of several national entities combined into an area; or
( 4 ) A group of national entities (countries) combined into a single area.
*Region of origin.* The region in which the embryo is conceived and collected and from which the embryo is imported into the United States.
*Ruminant.* All animals which chew the cud, including cattle, buffaloes, camelids, cervids (deer, elk, moose, and antelope), sheep, goats, and giraffes.
*Swine.* The domestic hog and all varieties of wild hogs.
*United States.* All of the States of the United States, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and all other territories and possessions of the United States.
[56 FR 55809, Oct. 30, 1991, as amended at 61 FR 15183, Apr. 5, 1996; 62 FR 56025, Oct. 28, 1997; 78 FR 73008, Dec. 4, 2013]
Exhibit




Exhibit 10.45
Amendment to Employment Agreement
This Amendment to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made as of October 29, 2015 by and between Scientific Games Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Michael Gavin Isaacs (“Executive”).
WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of June 9, 2014 (the “Agreement”); 
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual benefits to be derived herefrom and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 
		
	1.
	The Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the second sentence of Section 1 thereof and replacing it with the following:


“The term of employment of Executive under this Agreement (the “Term”) shall be the period commencing on June 9, 2014 (the “Effective Date”) and ending on June 9, 2018, as may be extended in accordance with this Section 1 and subject to earlier termination in accordance with Section 4.”
2.    Except as set forth in this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect in accordance with their terms.  All references to the “Agreement” in the Agreement shall refer to the Agreement as amended by this Amendment.
3.    This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original and all of which shall constitute the same instrument.  Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this Amendment by electronic transmission shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has duly executed this Amendment as of October 29, 2015.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES CORPORATION




By:   /s/ Gary L. Melampy            
Name:    Gary L. Melampy
Title: VP/ CHRO
    


   /s/ Michael Gavin Isaacs            
Michael Gavin Isaacs





1
EXHIBIT 32.1

ORTHOVITA, INC.

CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(B) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350

I, Antony Koblish, Chief Executive Officer of Orthovita, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (the
Company), hereby certify that:

(1) The Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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/ Antony KoblishAntony KoblishChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)


Date: March 16, 2006
```
**Exhibit 32.2

                  Certification Pursuant to Section 906 by CFO**

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 this Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report of Power3
Medical Products, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending
June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael J. Rosinski, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

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

                                                    /s/ Michael J. Rosinski
                                                    Michael J. Rosinski

                                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                                    Power3 Medical Products, Inc.
November 15, 2004
```
### §3060. State delegation; cooperation

#### (a) State delegation

#### (1) In general

The Authority may enter into an agreement with a State racing commission to implement, within the jurisdiction of the State racing commission, a component of the racetrack safety program or, with the concurrence of the anti-doping and medication control enforcement agency under section 3054(e) of this title, a component of the horseracing anti-doping and medication control program, if the Authority determines that the State racing commission has the ability to implement such component in accordance with the rules, standards, and requirements established by the Authority.

#### (2) Implementation by State racing commission

A State racing commission or other appropriate regulatory body of a State may not implement such a component in a manner less restrictive than the rule, standard, or requirement established by the Authority.

#### (b) Cooperation

To avoid duplication of functions, facilities, and personnel, and to attain closer coordination and greater effectiveness and economy in administration of Federal and State law, where conduct by any person subject to the horseracing medication control program or the racetrack safety program may involve both a medication control or racetrack safety rule violation and violation of Federal or State law, the Authority and Federal or State law enforcement authorities shall cooperate and share information.

(Pub. L. 116–260, div. FF, title XII, §1211, Dec. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 3274.)
Connecticut Staff Call Questions

September 25, 2014 1. Can EPA define Renewable Energy? a. How will EPA treat Fuel Cells? b. How will EPA treat municipal waste recovery facilities? 2. How did EPA determine the amount of RE credited to each state based on the EIA form data; seems there was a distinction drawn between biogenic and non

- biogenic generation for biomass.? a. How were Connecticut’s municipal waste recovery facilities counted?  appears only 50% of their generation counted  error appears to come from how data is reported to EIA (i.e. biogenic vs. non

- biogenic) 3. What data source did EPA use for Connecticut’s “existing biomass” in the alternative RE approach? a. It appears EPA included only landfill gas, though numbers were slightly lower than generation data in E IA  what was EPA’s source for data? 4. What data did EPA use for Connecticut’s “other generation” and “other emissions” in the goal calculation  Connecticut can’t reproduce EPA’s numbers
– 5. How did EPA calculate the RE goal when including existing hydro? a. Ap pears EPA did not recalculate growth rate and therefore numbers are not correct 6. Can EPA explain the hydro calculations in the alternative RE goal calculation?  The data in the referenced study has different numbers than what EPA used in the TSD Data File
. Issue appears to be a translation of the data. 7. Can EPA explain Connecticut’s total 2012 generation data used in the EE goal calculation?  There appears to be some double counting, counting of non

-generation data, and counting of Indian Territory ge neration (Mohegan Tribal Utility Authority).
Summary of New Programs in Rural Utilities Service

PACE New ERA

Eligible

Activities

 Renewable power generation from: wind, solar, geothermal, 

hydropower, or biomass

 Storage for or with renewable energy

 Purchase of clean energy systems, the construction of clean energy systems, or 

the purchase of clean energy power

 Renewable enabling technologies including storage and distributed clean energy 

generation as part of a clean energy generation project

 Zero-emission technologies, including carbon capture and storage (CCS), 

nuclear, as well as utility-controlled demand side management systems

 Transmission and renewable generation energy efficiency measures

Eligible

Applicants

 Any entity eligible to borrow from RUS 

 Applicants must serve an area with at least 50 percent rural 

consumers

 Electric cooperatives that are current or former RUS or REA borrowers, electric 

cooperatives serving predominantly rural areas, or wholly or jointly owned 

subsidiaries 

 Generation, transmission, or distribution cooperatives

Funding and 

Financing

 Loans at the municipal rate with partial forgiveness:

• Up to 20 percent for eligible applicants

• Up to 40 percent for energy dependent or disadvantaged 

communities

• Up to 60 percent for Tribal communities, Alaskan villages, 

Alaska Native Corporations, Hawaiian homelands, US 

territories, or compact states

 PACE program size: $1 billion

 Grants up to 25 percent of total project cost; 

 Loans from zero percent interest to the federal government's cost of money; no 

maximum loan value

 Zero percent interest refinancing available for stranded assets to invest in 

eligible projects and for distressed, disadvantaged, or energy dependent 

communities

 New ERA program size: $9.7 billion

Deadlines  Accepting Letters of Interest between June 30 and September 29, 

2023

 Not competitive and processed on a rolling basis

 Accepting Letters of Interest between July 31 and August 31, 2023

 Competitive scoring based on the greatest reduction in greenhouse gas 

emissions

Stacking of 

Incentives

Stacking federal incentives is generally allowed by RUS. No double payment for the same activity is permitted. Check with relevant federal agencies 

for stacking guidance regarding their programs.

Learn more about PACE and New ERA at https://www.rd.usda.gov | USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Jupiter Marine
International Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three month
period ending October 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lawrence Tierney, Principal
Accounting 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, to the
best of my knowledge, 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 fully presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


By: /s/ Lawrence Tierney
    ---------------------------
    Lawrence Tierney
    Principal Financial Officer
    December 13, 2004
§ 93.214 Import permit and declaration for poultry. ( a ) For poultry intended for importation from Canada, the importer shall first apply for and obtain from APHIS an import permit as provided in § 93.204: *Provided,* That an import permit is not required for poultry if offered for entry at a land border port designated in § 93.203(b).
( b ) For all poultry offered for importation from Canada, the importer or his or her agent shall present two copies of a declaration as provided in § 93.206.
[55 FR 31495, Aug. 2, 1990. Redesignated and amended at 62 FR 56012, 56015, Oct. 28, 1997]
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 12996]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5350]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Bureau of Labor Statistics


Data Users Advisory Committee, Notice of Meeting and Agenda

    The Data Users Advisory Committee will meet on Friday, March 25, 
2011. The meeting will be held in the Postal Square Building, 2 
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Washington, DC.
    The Committee provides advice to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
from the points of view of data users from various sectors of the U.S. 
economy, including the labor, business, research, academic, and 
government communities, on technical matters related to the collection, 
analysis, dissemination, and use of the Bureau's statistics, on its 
published reports, and on the broader aspects of its overall mission 
and function.
    The meeting will be held in Meeting Rooms 1, 2, and 3 of the Postal 
Square Building Conference Center. The schedule and agenda for the 
meeting are as follows:

8:30 a.m. Registration.
8:45 a.m. Introductions and Welcome.
9 a.m. Commissioner's Remarks on the State of the BLS.
10 a.m. The BLS Strategic Plan.
11:15 a.m. BLS Outreach Activities.
1:15 p.m. The Role of Labor Market Statistics: How the Federal 
statistical system can better serve the needs of labor market 
participants and labor market policy makers.
3 p.m. Current Challenges in Price Measurement.
4:30 p.m. Wrap-up.

    The meeting is open to the public. Any questions concerning the 
meeting should be directed to Kathy Mele, Data Users Advisory 
Committee, on 202.691.6102. Individuals who require special 
accommodations should contact Ms. Mele at least two days prior to the 
meeting date.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 1st day of March 2011.
Tod R. Sirois,
Acting Chief, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor 
Statistics.
[FR Doc. 2011-5350 Filed 3-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-24-P
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned, as the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer of C&F
Financial Corporation, certify that to the best of their knowledge and belief the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of C&F Financial Corporation at the dates
and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation
to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|                    |  |                                                     
|------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 5, 2008 |  | /s/ Larry G. Dillon                                 
|                    |  | Larry G. Dillon                                     
|                    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer               
|                    | 
|Date: March 5, 2008 |  | /s/ Thomas F. Cherry                                
|                    |  | Thomas F. Cherry                                    
|                    |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
MICHAEL STEVE COX,

Petitioner, vs. THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WHITE PINE, Respondent. MICHAEL STEVE COX, Petitioner, vs. THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WHITE PINE, Respondent. No. 62079

6208W



### ORDER DENYING WRIT PETITIONS These are seven original proper person petitions for extraordinary relief. The petitions are not consolidated.

Having considered these petitions and supporting documents, we conclude that petitioner's arguments lack merit and that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not warranted. Accordingly, we deny the petitions. NRAP 21(b)(1); NRAP 21(c).

Additionally, as demonstrated by the this order, petitioner has filed numerous meritless proper person petitions in this court seeking extraordinary writ relief and has further filed a number of similarly meritless appeals in this court. 

### See Cox v. McDaniel, Docket No. 60056, 

### Cox v. McDaniel, Docket No. 60151, 

### Cox v. Bannister, Docket No. 60637, 

### Cox v. 

### State, Docket No. 61322. We caution appellant that continued filing of such meritless petitions and appeals may result in restrictions on his ability to file papers in this court in forma pauperis. 

### See Jordan v. State, Dept. of Motor Vehicles & Pub. Safety, 121 Nev. 

### 44, 110 P.3d 30 (2005),

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 2
1947A

### abrogated on other grounds by Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124

Nev. 224, 181 P.3d 670 (2008).

It is so ORDERED.'



### / ' 114A Hardesty

Parraguirre

cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge Michael Steve Cox Attorney General/Carson City Carson City Clerk White Pine County Clerk Eighth District Court Clerk

'In each of these writ petitions, this court has received petitioner's requests for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We direct the clerk of this court to file the May 17, 2011, and the June 28, 2011, motions in Docket No. 58292; the March 19, 2012, motion in Docket No. 60404; the March 19, 2012, motion in Docket No. 60406; the March 19, 2012, motion in Docket No. 60407; the March 19, 2012, motion in Docket No. 60409; the November 20, 2012, motion in Docket No. 62079; and the November 20, 2012, motion in Docket No. 62080. Because petitioner was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in each of these writ petitions, no action is required on these motions.

3