alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32(b)





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Rocky Brands, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
E. McDonald, Executive Vice President and Chief 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:




(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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/ James E. McDonaldJames
      E. McDonald, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
      OfficerMay 4,
      2009
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 30, 2021

NO. 03

- 21

- 00070

- CV

J. T. , Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHI EF J USTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES BAKER AND SMITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the judgmen t si gned by the tr i a l court on January 20, 2021

. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the trial court’s judgment

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. Because

ap pell ant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
§ 312.6 Eligible recipients. A recipient eligible for investment assistance includes: ( a ) A State;
( b ) An Indian tribe;
( c ) A city or other political subdivision of a State;
( d ) An entity that is a nonprofit organization and whose application for funding under the RIS Program is supported by a State or a political subdivision of a State;
( e ) An entity that is an institution of higher education, a public-private partnership, a science or research park, a Federal laboratory, or an economic development organization or similar entity, and whose application for funding under the RIS Program is supported by a State or a political subdivision of a State; or
( f ) A consortium of any of the entities described in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
----

----

I Information

Commission

----

Euro exchange rates (1)

22 November 2005

(2005/C 290/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
§ 108.600 General requirement for NMVC Company to maintain and preserve records. ( a ) *Maintaining your accounting records.* You must establish and maintain your accounting records using SBA's standard chart of accounts for SBICs, unless SBA approves otherwise. You may obtain this chart of accounts from SBA.
( b ) *Location of records.* You must keep the following records at your principal place of business or, in the case of paragraph (b)(3) of this section, at the branch office that is primarily responsible for the transaction: ( 1 ) All your accounting and other financial records;
( 2 ) All minutes of meetings of directors, stockholders, executive committees, partners, or other officials; and
( 3 ) All documents and supporting materials related to your business transactions, except for any items held by a custodian under a written agreement between you and a Portfolio Concern or non-SBA lender, or any securities held in a safe deposit box, or by a licensed securities broker in an amount not exceeding the broker's per-account insurance coverage.
( c ) *Preservation of records.* You must retain all the records that are the basis for your financial reports. Such records must be preserved for the periods specified in this paragraph (c), and must remain accessible for the first two years of the preservation period. ( 1 ) You must preserve for at least 15 years or, in the case of a Partnership NMVC Company or LLC NMVC Company, at least two years beyond the date of liquidation: ( i ) All your accounting ledgers and journals, and any other records of assets, asset valuations, liabilities, equity, income, and expenses.
( ii ) Your Articles, bylaws, minute books, and NMVC Company application.
( iii ) All documents evidencing ownership of the NMVC Company including ownership ledgers, and ownership transfer registers.
( 2 ) You must preserve for at least six years all supporting documentation (such as vouchers, bank statements, or canceled checks) for the records listed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
( 3 ) After final disposition of any item in your Portfolio, you must preserve for at least six years: ( i ) Financing applications and Financing instruments.
( ii ) All loan, participation, and escrow agreements.
( iii ) Size status declarations (SBA Form 480).
( iv ) Any capital stock certificates and warrants of the Portfolio Concern that you did not surrender or exercise.
( v ) All other documents and supporting material relating to the Portfolio Concern, including correspondence.
( 4 ) You may substitute a microfilm or computer-scanned or generated copy for the original of any record covered by this paragraph (c).
( d ) *Additional requirement.* You must comply with the recordkeeping and record retention requirements set forth in Circular A-110 of the Office of Management and Budget. (OMB circulars are available from the addresses in 5 CFR 1310.3.)
§ 307.4 Award requirements. ( a ) *General.* EDA will select Economic Adjustment Assistance Projects in accordance with part 301 of this chapter and the additional criteria provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, as applicable. Funding priority considerations for Economic Adjustment Assistance, including RLF Grants, may be set forth in an FFO.
( b ) *Strategy Grants.* EDA will review Strategy Grant applications to ensure that the proposed activities conform to the CEDS requirements set forth in § 303.7 of this chapter. Strategy Grants shall comply with the applicable provisions of part 303 of this chapter.
( c ) *Implementation Grants.* ( 1 ) EDA will review Implementation Grant applications for the extent to which the: ( i ) Applicable CEDS meets the requirements in § 303.7 of this chapter; and
( ii ) Proposed Project is identified as a necessary element of or consistent with the applicable CEDS.
( 2 ) Implementation Grants involving construction shall comply with the provisions of subpart B of part 305 of this chapter.
( 3 ) Implementation Grants that do not involve construction shall comply with the applicable provisions of subpart A of part 306 of this chapter.
( d ) *See* § 307.7 for RLF award requirements.
[71 FR 56675, Sept. 27, 2006, as amended at 75 FR 4264, Jan. 27, 2010; 79 FR 76132, Dec. 19, 2014]
### **CHAPTER 151—DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS**

Sec.
2201.
Creation of remedy.
2202.
Further relief.
#### In the Matter of Morton S. Coan, an Attorney.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-2151

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Tiffany McAllister lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________ Submitted: June 17, 2022 Filed: June 27, 2022 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Tiffany McAllister appeals after the district court 1 denied her motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1), as modified by the First

1 The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.Step Act, based on her medical issues, the conditions and medical care available to

her within the Bureau of Prisons, and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. We review de novo the applicability of the First Step Act to a defendant’s case, and we review the district court’s decision to deny an authorized reduction for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Vangh, 990 F.3d 1138, 1141 (8th Cir. 2021). We decline to decide whether McAllister’s refusal to receive an effective vaccine and other treatment that would reduce the risk of serious consequences after she contracted COVID-19 made her ineligible for First Step Act Compassionate Release Relief. We discern no abuse of discretion in the denial based on the other justifications provided by the district court, including that she had not established that the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weighed in favor of early release. See United States v. Marcussen, 15 F.4th 855, 857-59 (8th Cir. 2021) (concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for release based on its weighing of § 3553(a) factors, because court acknowledged mitigating factors but determined that they did not justify release); see also United States v. Howard, 962 F.3d 1013, 1015 (8th Cir. 2020) (affirming denial of motion for reduction under First Step Act because, even if district court erred regarding movant’s eligibility, district court also determined that it would not exercise its discretion to grant relief, and thus further proceedings would be futile). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           9,156
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,981
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,428
<PP&E>                                         506,932
<DEPRECIATION>                                 131,646
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 593,654
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,669
<BONDS>                                        447,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     112,090
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   593,654
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,467
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,444
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,667
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,589
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (355)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,944
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,944
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.54<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.54
<FN>
<F1>Represents basis earnings per unit.
</FN>


</TABLE>
### subpart 1—state provisions
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

31 October 2005

(2005/C 273/02)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

 

CASE NO. 20-CV-14205-ROSENBERG/MAYNARD 

DAVID POSCHMANN, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

 

GEORGIA/CAROLINA I & D, LLC, 

 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________/ 

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby dismisses this action with 

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) with each side to bear his/its 

own fees and costs except as otherwise agreed in the parties' settlement agreement. 

Dated: August 20, 2020 

 s/Drew M. Levitt

 Drew M. Levitt 

 Florida Bar No. 782246 

 drewmlevitt@gmail.com 

 Lee D. Sarkin, Esq. 

 Florida Bar No. 962848 

 Lsarkin@aol.com 

 4700 N.W. Boca Raton Boulevard 

 Suite 302 

 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 

 Telephone (561) 994-6922 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 2:20-cv-14205-RLR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2020 Page 1 of 1
## Docket No. FAA**- 2012**  **- 0297** 

**Contacts.** With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted **Date** Response **National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti**  4/29/11 **Regional Airline Association Co**  **nnie Arnold**  4/29/11

**Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman**  4/29/11 **ATA Joe White**  4/29/11
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 191

**Question 191:** Is a licensee required to provide dosimeters to an individual during a planned special exposure (PSE) that would only be worn during the PSE?

**Answer:** No, there is no requirement, but the licensee may do so. 10 CFR 20.1206 requires that the doses received during a PSE be accounted for separately from the doses received under the limits of 20.1201, and the use of separate dosimeters that are worn only during the PSE is a practical means to account for the PSE dose. 

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1206, 10 CFR 20.2105, 10 CFR 20.2204)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, November 08, 2017
Skip to global NPS navigation
Skip to this park navigation
Skip to the main content
Skip to this park information section
Skip to the footer section






National Park Service Search Search
This Site
All NPS
 Open
Menu
Close
Menu
Explore This Park
Explore the National Park Service


Exiting nps.gov
  Cancel


Thomas Jefferson Memorial
District of Columbia


Info
Alerts
Maps
Calendar
Fees


Alerts In Effect Dismiss
 more information on current conditions...
 Dismiss View all alerts


Contact Us
  History & Culture
 The Memorial
Dedicated by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on April 13, 1943, the Thomas Jefferson Memorial stands in a straight line with the White House.  Architect John Russell Pope, influenced by Jefferson's taste in classical architecture, echoed the style seen in Jefferson's two most famous buildings - Monticello and the University of Virginia Rotunda.

The Man
Founding Father... Revolutionary... Renaissance Man.Thomas Jeffersonwas the primary author of the Declaration of Independence,first Secretary of State for the United States of America, and a complex, 19th-century man with a wide ranging impact on the very makeup of America itself.
 Last updated: August 30, 2022
 Park footer Contact Info Mailing Address: 1100 Ohio Drive SW
Washington,
DC
20242
 Phone: 202 426-6841 Contact Us
 Tools FAQ
Site Index
Español
 Stay Connected


This Site
All NPS 
  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
 Accessibility
Privacy Policy
FOIA
Notices
Contact The National Park Service NPS FAQ
No Fear Act
Disclaimer
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
USA.gov Facebook
Youtube
Twitter
Instagram
Flickr
#### § 3715.7-2 What happens if I do not comply with a BLM order?

If you do not comply with a BLM order issued under § 3715.7-1, the Department of the Interior may request the United States Attorney to institute a civil action in United States District Court for an injunction or order to prevent you from using or occupying the public lands in violation of the regulations of this subpart. This relief may be in addition to the enforcement actions described in § 3715.7-1 and the penalties described in § 3715.8.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i at e f orpubl i c at i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J OR GE AV I L A- AV I L A; AZ UC E NA ME Z A- AR C INI E GA , P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 72962 A ge nc yN os . A 097- 856- 033

A 097- 856- 034 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r atio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d J anuary10, 2011 ** B efo re: B E E Z E R , T A L L M A N , an dC A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J or ge A vi l a - A vi l aand A z uc e naM e z a - A r c i ni e ga , hus band and w i f e and na t i ve s and c i t i z e ns of

M e xi c o, pe t i t i on f

orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of

I m m i gr at i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng thei r m ot i on t o reopen rem ov alproceedi ng s bas ed o n in e f f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e o f

c o u n s e l. W e h av e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 .



# FI LED JAN 18 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 72962 2 W e r e vi e w f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a lof am ot i on t o r e ope n, and r e vi e w de novo c l a i m s of

due pr oc e s s vi ol at i ons i n i m m i gr at i on pr oc e e di ngs , i nc l udi ng c la im s o f in e f f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e o f

c o u n s e l. Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 400 F . 3d 785, 7 9 1 - 9 2 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g p e titio n e r s ’ m o tio n to r e o p e n b e c au s e th e yf

a ile dto e s tab lis h th e r e qu ir e dp r e ju d ic e . See R oj as-G arci a v. A s h c r o ft , 33 9 F . 3d81 4, 82 6 (9th C i r. 20 03 ) ( t o p re vai lon an i neff ec t i ve as si st ance o f c o u n s e l c la im , ap e titio n e rm u s t d e m o n s tr ate p r e ju d ic e ) . C ouns e l ’ s A ugus t30, 2010, m ot i on t o w i thdr aw i s gr ant e d. PETI TI O N FO R R EVI EW D EN I ED .
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HAMID MICHAEL HEJAZI,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

OREGON SUPREME COURT, public entity; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 35151

D.C. No. 6:19

- cv

- 01667

- HZ

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2021 * *

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Hamid Michael Hejazi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims for failure to pay the

filing fee after the district court denied his application to proceed in forma

pauperis . We have juri sdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 22 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

of discretion the denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis. O’Loughlin v. Doe

,

920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990) . We may affirm on any basis supported by the

record. Id

. at 617 . We affirm.

Denial of Hejazi’s request to proceed in forma pauperis was not an abuse of

discretion because the allegations in Hejazi’s complaint were frivolous and without

merit. See Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“[The] term ‘frivolous,’

when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion,

but also the fanciful factual allegation.”); O ’ Loughlin , 920 F.2d at 617 (defining

“frivolous” as having no arguable basis in fact or law); Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank

& Tr. , 821 F.2d 1368 , 1370 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A district court may deny leave to

proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed

complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in d enying Hejazi’s motion for

reconsideration because Hejazi failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch.

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County , Or. v. ACandS

, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262

- 63 (9th

Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration ).

AFFIRMED

.
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 134.904 Requirements for the Size Standard Petition. ( a ) *Form.* There is no required form for a Size Standard Petition. However, it must include the following information: ( 1 ) A copy of the final rule published in the Federal Register to revise, modify, or establish a size standard, or an electronic link to the final rule;
( 2 ) A full and specific statement as to which size standard(s) in the final rule the Petitioner is challenging and why the process that was used to revise, modify, or establish each challenged size standard is alleged to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law, together with argument supporting such allegation;
( 3 ) A copy of any comments the Petitioner submitted in response to the proposed notice of rulemaking that pertained to the size standard(s) in question, or a statement that no such comments were submitted; and
( 4 ) The name, mailing address, telephone number, facsimile number, email address, and signature of the Petitioner or its attorney.
( b ) *Multiple size standards.* A Petitioner may challenge multiple size standards that were revised, modified, or established in the same final rule in a single Size Standard Petition, provided that the Petitioner demonstrates standing for each of the challenged size standards.
( c ) *Format.* The formatting provisions of § 134.203(d) apply to Size Standard Petitions.
( d ) *Service.* In addition to filing the Size Standard Petition at OHA, the Petitioner must serve a copy of the Size Standard Petition upon each of the following: ( 1 ) SBA's Office of Size Standards, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Washington, DC 20416; facsimile number (202) 205-6390; or *sizestandards@sba.gov ;* and
( 2 ) SBA's Office of General Counsel, Associate General Counsel for Procurement Law, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Washington, DC 20416; facsimile number (202) 205-6873; or *OPLService@sba.gov .*
( e ) *Certificate of service.* The Petitioner must attach to the Size Standard Petition a signed certificate of service meeting the requirements of § 134.204(d).