alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 97-019 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Wednesday, February 5, 1997)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

A subcommittee of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards has scheduled a

technical meeting February 20 and 21 in Rockville, Maryland.

The meeting, which is open to the public, will begin at 8:30

a.m. each day in Room 2B3 of the NRC's Two White Flint North

building at 11545 Rockville Pike. The Subcommittee on

Probabilistic Risk Assessment will continue its discussion of the

NRC staff's approach to codify risk-informed, performance-based

regulation through development of a standard review plan.

Other aspects of the meeting, including an opportunity for

public comment, are described in a Notice of Meeting published in

the February 5 edition of the Federal Register.

#
EXHIBIT 4.11 


 


THIRD AMENDMENT TO 


SOW GOOD INC.


(f/k/a BLACK RIDGE OIL & GAS, INC.)


2020 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


 


This document is the
Third Amendment to the Sow Good Inc. 2020 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Plan”).


 


W I T N E S S E T H


 


WHEREAS, Sow
Good Inc., formerly known as Black Ridge Oil & Gas, Inc. (the “Company”) has established the Plan; and


 


WHEREAS, Section
10.10 of the Plan permits amendment of the Plan by the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”), conditioned
on additional approvals by the Company’s shareholders for certain amendments;


 


WHEREAS, the
Board previously approved an amendment to the Plan (subject to further approval by shareholders within one year), increasing the
number of shares reserved thereunder to 514,150 (the “First Amendment”);


 


WHEREAS, the
Board previously approved an amendment to the Plan (subject to further approval by shareholders within one year), increasing the
number of shares reserved thereunder to 614,150 (the “Second Amendment”); and


 


WHEREAS, the
Board has determined it to be in the best interests of the Company to further amend the Plan as set forth in this document (the
“Third Amendment”).


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
in consideration of the premises, the Plan is amended as follows:


 


Section 5.1 of the
Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


 


“5.1Number of Shares.
Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 10.6, the number of shares of Common Stock which may be issued under the Plan shall
not exceed 814,150 shares of Common Stock. Shares of Common Stock that are issued under the Plan or are subject to outstanding
Incentives will be applied to reduce the maximum number of shares of Common Stock remaining available for issuance under the Plan.
Shares of Common Stock subject to a participant’s exercise of either an option or a SAR, but not both (a “tandem SAR”),
shall be counted only once.”


 


[Certification on following page.]


 


 






    	 	 	 



     


    

 


CERTIFICATION


 


 


The undersigned Executive
Chairman of the Board of Sow Good Inc., a Nevada corporation, does hereby certify that the foregoing Third Amendment to the Sow
Good Inc. 2020 Stock Incentive Plan was adopted for the Company by its Board of Directors, subject to approval by the stockholders,
effective on March 19, 2021.


 


 


___________________________________________


Ira Goldfarb, Executive Chairman of the Board
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 0:20-cv-61422-AHS 

SABINE FRANCIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BETHESDA HOSPITAL EAST, INC. 

Defendant. 

____________________________/ 

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, Sabine Francis ("Plaintiff"), and Bethesda Hospital East ("Defendant"), by and 

through their respective undersigned attorneys and pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby stipulate to the dismissal of all of Plaintiff's claims in this action 

with prejudice (the "Stipulation"). 

A resolution of all matters in dispute between the Parties has been made pursuant to a 

Confidential Settlement Agreement. The Parties further stipulate that each shall bear their own 

costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, and paralegals' fees, except as otherwise provided in the Parties' 

Confidential Settlement Agreement. All Parties consent to the form and content of this Stipulation. 

Date: April 21, 2021. 

Case 0:20-cv-61422-AHS Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2021 Page 1 of 2
Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Jay Romano________

Jay Romano 

E-Mail: jromanopa@yahoo.com 

Discrimination Law Center, P.A. 

433 Plaza Real, Ste. 275 

Boca Raton, FL 33432 

Telephone: (561) 271-1769 

Counsel for Plaintiff, Sabine Francis 

By: /s/ Arlene K. Kline____________________

Arlene K. Kline 

Florida Bar No.: 104957 

E-Mail: arlene.kline@akerman.com 

Kimberly R. Rivera 

Florida Bar No.: 124822 

E-mail: kimberly.rivera@akerman.com 

AKERMAN LLP 

777 South Flagler Drive 

Suite 1100 West Tower 

West Palm Beach, FL 33401 

Telephone: (561) 653-5000 

Facsimile: (561) 659-6313 

Counsel for Defendant, Bethesda Hospital 

East 

Case 0:20-cv-61422-AHS Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2021 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 13.2





CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 annual report of Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Nir Feller, Chief Financial 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, that to my knowledge:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.





Date:  March 17, 2011
/s/ Nir FellerNir FellerChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
#### Rodion Slipyj, Appellant, v. Theodozia Slipyj, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — -Peck, P. J., £)ore, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.; Van Voorhis, J., dissents in part and votes to reverse and dismiss the counterclaim, as well as the complaint, on the ground that on the facts the defendant, as well as the plaintiff, has been guilty of misconduct. Settle order on notice.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: SE00818

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Etelos, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, ChiefFinancial 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 tothe best of my knowledge:

 

1.        TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.        The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: March 17, 2010 |   | /s/  Daniel J.A. Kolke                     |
|---------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|                      |   | Daniel J.A. Kolke, Chief Executive Officer |
|                      |   | (Principal Financial Officer)              |

 

----
#### Henry E. Dixey v. Henry W. Savage.

Motion granted unless appellant complies with terms stated in order. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Hasan SHABAZZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-50205.

D.C. No. CR-00-00298-FMC-06.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 8, 2002.

Decided May 21, 2002.

Before KLEINFELD and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Susan R. Bolton, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Hasan Shabazz appeals the demal of his motion to suppress evidence seized at Ms *564residence pursuant to a search warrant. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. The issuance of a search warrant by a judge is reviewed for clear error. *United, States v. Bowman,*215 F.3d 951, 963 n. 6 (9th Cir.2000). There was no clear error here. The search warrant was supported by probable cause.

Because the affidavit of special agent Robert Williams was sufficient to establish a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found at the location specified in the search warrant, the motion to suppress was properly denied. *See United States v. Gil, 58*F.3d 1414, 1419 (9th Cir.1995) (internal quotations omitted).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *564courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         895641
<NAME>                        GARMENT GRAPHICS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         46,428
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,641,628
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    5,809,766
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               8,312,344
<PP&E>                                         2,009,093
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,304,663
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9,394,644
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          7,047,378
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,242
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,298,930
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9,394,644
<SALES>                                        9,755,898
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               9,755,898
<CGS>                                          8,460,357
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  10,344,768
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             134,408
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (723,278)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (87,237)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (636,041)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.21)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



Statement



Pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of Appleton Papers Inc. (the Company),
hereby certifies that to his knowledge:



| | (1) | the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 3, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                      |  |        |  |                                                   
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------- |  | ------ |  | --------------------------------------------------
|                      |  |  |  | APPLETON PAPERS INC.
|                      |  | 
|Dated: March 31, 2004 |  |  |  |                     
|                      |  |  |  |                     
|                      |  |  |  |                      |  |        |  | /s/    DALE E. PARKER                             
|                      |  |  |  |                      |  |        |  |                                                   
|                      |  |  |  |                      |  | Name:  |  | Dale E. Parker                                    
|                      |  |  |  |                      |  | Title: |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Officer



This certification accompanies this
Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.



2
### §2002. Prohibitions on lie detector use

Except as provided in sections 2006 and 2007 of this title, it shall be unlawful for any employer engaged in or affecting commerce or in the production of goods for commerce—

(1) directly or indirectly, to require, request, suggest, or cause any employee or prospective employee to take or submit to any lie detector test;

(2) to use, accept, refer to, or inquire concerning the results of any lie detector test of any employee or prospective employee;

(3) to discharge, discipline, discriminate against in any manner, or deny employment or promotion to, or threaten to take any such action against—

(A) any employee or prospective employee who refuses, declines, or fails to take or submit to any lie detector test, or

(B) any employee or prospective employee on the basis of the results of any lie detector test; or

(4) to discharge, discipline, discriminate against in any manner, or deny employment or promotion to, or threaten to take any such action against, any employee or prospective employee because—

(A) such employee or prospective employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter,

(B) such employee or prospective employee has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding, or

(C) of the exercise by such employee or prospective employee, on behalf of such employee or another person, of any right afforded by this chapter.

(Pub. L. 100–347, §3, June 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 646.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 6 months after June 27, 1988, except that rules and regulations shall be issued not later than 90 days after June 27, 1988, see section 11 of Pub. L. 100–347, set out as a note under section 2001 of this title.
#### DODGE, Respondent, v. HESS et al, Appellants.

(195 N. W. 972.)

(File No. 5439.

Opinion filed December 3, 1923.)

Appeal and Error — Waiver—Variance-Motions—Order Denying Motion to Strike Complaint Because of Variance Between It and Summons Held Not Appealable.

Order denying motion to strike complaint because of variance between' it and the summons, which was based on Rev. Code 1919, Sec. 2331, subd. 1, on the ground that defendants had made a general appearance within Rev. Code 1919, Sec. 2332, and that they could not have been misled by tbe form of tbe summons, held not appealable.

Appeal from' 'Circuit Court, Codington County; Hon. W. N. Skinner, Judge.

Action by Theodore Dodge, by C. H. Dodge, his guardian! ad litem, against S. B. Hess and another, copartners doing business as Hess & Rau. Erom an order of the trial court, denying a motion to strike the complaint, defendants- appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

*Case & Case,*of Watertown, for Appellant.

*Loucks, Hasclie Foley,*of Watertown, for Respondent.

Appellant cited: Berry v. Bigem'an (S. D.), 47 N. W. 825; St. Paul Harvester Go., v. Forbreg (’S. D.); 50 N'. W. 628.

Respondent cited: Barry v. Bingham; 47 N. W. 825; 'Mfc-Coun v. Railroad C'o., 50 N; Y. 176; Eomd du Lac v. Bonesteel, 22 Wis. 251; P’orter v. P'orter (Dak.), 33 N. W. 71.

GATES, J.

In this case a “money demand” summons (Rev. Code 1919 § 2331, subd. 1) was served; later a complaint based upon a cause of action in tort was served. On the 31st day thereafter the defendant’s caused to be served upon plaintiff’s attorneys a notice of appearance (R’ev. Code 1919 § 23132!) and an order to show cause, together with the affidavit on which the order was based, why the complaint should not be stricken because of a variance between it and the summons. Upon the hear*68ing the trial court denied the motion upon the ground that a general appearance had been made by defendants in the action and upon the ground that defendants could not have been misled 'by the form oí the summons. Defendants appeal from the order and rely upon St. Paul Harvester Co. v. Forbreg, 2 S. D. 357, 50 N. W. 628.

We are unable toi find any provision of section 3168, Rev. Code 191x9, that' makes this an appealable order. It seems tO' us that wjhat was said in Ryan v. Davenport, 5 S. D. 203, 58 N. W. 568, is, in principle, applicable here. That was an appeal from an order refusing to set aside the; service of a summons. St. Paul Harvester Co. v. Forbreg, supra, w;as an appeal from an order vacating a default judgment.

The appeal is dismissed,,' with costs to respondent.

■ Note.. — Reported in 195 N. W. 972. See, Headnote, American Key-Numbered Digest, Appeal and error, Key-No. 103, 3 C. J. Sec. 316.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 18.1

                      [DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP LETTERHEAD]



February 13, 1997

Tufco Technologies, Inc.
4800 Simonton Road
Dallas, Texas 75244

Dear Sirs,

At your request, we have read the description included in your Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q to the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 1996, of the facts relating to the change in method of accounting
for certain inventories from the last-in, first-out basis to the first-in,
first-out basis. We believe, on the basis of the facts so set forth and other
information furnished to us by appropriate officials of the Company, that the
accounting change described in your Form 10-Q is to an alternative accounting
principle that is preferable under the circumstances.

We have not audited any consolidated financial statements of Tufco
Technologies, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries as of any date or for any
period subsequent to September 30, 1996. Therefore, we are unable to express,
and we do not express, an opinion on the facts set forth in the
above-mentioned Form 10-Q, on the related information furnished to us by
officials of the Company, or on the financial position, results of operations,
or cash flows of Tufco Technologies, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries as
of any date or for any period subsequent to September 30, 1996.

Yours truly,

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
### §7653. Shipments from the United States

#### (a) Tax imposed

#### (1) Puerto Rico

All articles of merchandise of United States manufacture coming into Puerto Rico shall be entered at the port of entry upon payment of a tax equal in rate and amount to the internal revenue tax imposed in Puerto Rico upon the like articles of Puerto Rican manufacture.

#### (2) Virgin Islands

There shall be imposed in the Virgin Islands upon articles imported from the United States a tax equal to the internal revenue tax imposed in such islands upon like articles there manufactured.

#### (b) Exemption from tax imposed in the United States

Articles, goods, wares, or merchandise going into Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa from the United States shall be exempted from the payment of any tax imposed by the internal revenue laws of the United States.

#### (c) Drawback of tax paid in the United States

All provisions of law for the allowance of drawback of internal revenue tax on articles exported from the United States are, so far as applicable, extended to like articles upon which an internal revenue tax has been paid when shipped from the United States to Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, or American Samoa.

#### (d) Cross reference

**For the disposition of the proceeds of all taxes collected under the internal revenue laws of the United States on articles produced in Guam and transported into the United States or its possessions, or consumed in Guam, see the Act of August 1, 1950 (48 U.S.C. 1421h).**

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736 68A Stat. 908; Pub. L. 86–70, §22(f), June 25, 1959, 73 Stat. 146; Pub. L. 86–624, §18(h), July 12, 1960, 74 Stat. 416; Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(a)(56), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1832.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Act of August 1, 1950, referred to in subsec. (d), is act Aug. 1, 1950, ch. 512, 64 Stat. 384, known as the Organic Act of Guam, which is classified principally to chapter 8A (§1421 et seq.) of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1421 of Title 48 and Tables.

#### Amendments

1976—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "ch. 512, 64 Stat. 392, section 30" after "August 1, 1950".

1960—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 86–624 substituted "or its possessions" for ", its possessions or the Territory of Hawaii".

1959—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 86–70 substituted "its possessions or the Territory of Hawaii" for "its Territories or possessions".

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

#### Effective Date of 1960 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 86–624 effective Aug. 21, 1959, see section 18(k) of Pub. L. 86–624, set out as a note under section 3121 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1959 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 86–70 effective Jan. 3, 1959, see section 22(i) of Pub. L. 86–70, set out as a note under section 3121 of this title.
#### Maria Dorazio, as Administratrix of the Estate of Francesco Dorazio, Deceased, Respondent, v. New York Telephone Company et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Present — Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ.
-81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 37

 38

 39

 40

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲

★

▲ ▲

▲ ▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

07/09

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 09 Jul 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
Editorial Note on Part 121
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 121 appear at 72 FR 50039 and 50040, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 121.1101 Are formal size determinations subject to appeal? ( a ) Appeals from formal size determinations may be made to OHA. Unless an appeal is made to OHA, the size determination made by a SBA Government Contracting Area Office or Disaster Area Office is the final decision of the agency. The procedures for appealing a formal size determination to OHA are set forth in part 134 of this chapter. The OHA appeal is an administrative remedy that must be exhausted before judicial review of a formal size determination may be sought in a court.
( b ) OHA will review all timely appeals of size determinations.
[69 FR 29207, May 21, 2004, as amended at 76 FR 5683, Feb. 2, 2011]