alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Table of Contents

EXHIBIT32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S. C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of CepTor Corporation, (the‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-QSB for quarterlyperiod ended June  30,  2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the‘‘Report’’), I, William H. Pursley,Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to myknowledge:

|           |                                                                                                                       |
|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1)  | The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13 (a) of 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and |

|           |                                                                                                                                                    |
|-----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2)  | The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company. |

September 5, 2006

|  | /s/ William H.Pursley                                WilliamH. PursleyChairman of the Board and Chief ExecutiveOfficer |
|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
§ 12.208 Submissions of proof. ( a ) *Documentary evidence.* Each party may file and serve verified statements of fact and affidavits of non-party witnesses with personal knowledge of the facts which they aver to be true. Proof in support of the complaint and in support of the respondent's answer may be found in those verified documents, in affidavits of non-party witnesses, in other verified statements of fact, and in other documents and tangible exhibits.
( b ) *Oral testimony and examination.* The Administrative Judge may order an oral hearing for the presentation of testimony and examination of the parties and their witnesses when appropriate and necessary for the resolution of factual issues, upon motion by either a party or the Administrative Judge. An oral hearing held under this section will be convened by conference telephone call as provided in § 12.209(b), except that an in-person hearing may be held in Washington, DC, under the circumstances set forth in § 12.209(c).
[49 FR 6621, Feb. 22, 1984, as amended at 59 FR 9637, Mar. 1, 1994; 86 FR 64357, Nov. 18, 2021]
#### §§ 149.161-149.169 [Reserved]
#### Interstate Operating Co., Inc., Respondent, v. O. P. G. Recreation Center, Inc., Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff. Joseph Goldae, Third-Party Defendant.

In our opinion, the first cause of action alleged facts sufficient to state a cause of action for conversion. *(Mallory Associates*v. *Barving Realty Co.,*300 N. Y. 297.) Such being the ease, the motion to dismiss, directed to the entire complaint, was properly denied, and it is unnecessary to determine whether the second cause of action alleged states facts sufficient to constitute any other separate cause of action. *(Advance Music Corp.*v. *American Tobacco Co.,*296 N. Y. 79, 84; *Imperatrice*v. *Imperatrice,*298 N. Y. 549, 550.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3857 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3857

To amend the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 
  2007 to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to include as an 
 eligible use the sustainment of specialized operational teams used by 
local law enforcement under the Transit Security Grant Program, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 31, 2012

 Mr. Turner of New York (for himself, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Rogers 
  of Alabama, and Mr. Grimm) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 
  2007 to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to include as an 
 eligible use the sustainment of specialized operational teams used by 
local law enforcement under the Transit Security Grant Program, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Public Transit Security and Local 
Law Enforcement Support Act''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION REGARDING USE OF GRANT FUNDS RELATING TO 
              OPERATIONAL COSTS OF PUBLIC TRANSIT SECURITY.

    (a) In General.--Section 1406(b)(2) of the Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 
1135(b)(2)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) through (H) as 
        subparagraphs (F) through (I), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new 
        subparagraph (E):
                    ``(E) specialized patrol teams, as defined by the 
                Secretary in coordination with the recipients of grants 
                under this section, including the sustainment of such 
                teams without fiscal year or other limitation;''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date of enactment of this Act and shall apply to 
grants made under section 1406 of the Implementing Recommendations of 
the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 1135) on or after such date.
                                 <all>
```
MP_CN100

QUALITY OF COTTON CLASSED UNDER SMITH DOXEY ACT

NUMBER OF SMITH-DOXEY SAMPLES CLASSED, BY CLASSING OFFICE,
Week and Season Ended December 16, 2004

CLASSING OFFICE                      Week            Season

                                          UPLAND

Abilene                             88,220           727,278
Birmingham                          31,427           761,786
Corpus Christi                       5,844         1,477,880
Dumas                               62,161         2,662,848
Florence                            88,272         1,735,936
Lamesa                              75,879           393,914
Lubbock                            254,430         1,131,761
Macon                               89,449         1,629,997
Memphis                            159,323         2,978,459
Phoenix                             50,133           496,440
Rayville                            11,612           955,768
Visalia                            114,394         1,266,084

United States                    1,031,144        16,218,151

Percent tenderable                    56.8              73.8

                                          American Pima

Phoenix                              8,754            36,917
Visalia                             41,332           421,154

United States                       50,086           458,071

United States all cotton         1,081,230        16,676,222





Contact:  Stokes Quisenberry
Phone:  901 384-3016
Fax:  901 384-3036
Email:  Stokes.Quisenberry@USDA.GOV
#### Bridgette Corley, Plaintiff, v Country Squire Apartments, Inc., Respondent, and Rick Osburn Construction, Inc., Appellant.

[820 NYS2d 900]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Rick Osburn Construction, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Horowitz, J.), dated October 11, 2005, as denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims of the defendant Country Squire Apartments, Inc., for contractual and common-law indemnification.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and those branches of the motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims of the defendant Country Squire Apartments, Inc., for contractual and common-law indemnification are granted.

The Supreme Court erred in denying those branches of the appellant’s motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims of the defendant Country Squire Apartments, Inc. (hereinafter Country Squire), for contractual and common-law indemnification. With respect to contractual indemnification, the appellant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. There is no evidence that the appellant had any contractual obligation to indemnify Country Squire *(see Keshavarz v Murphy,*242 AD2d 680 [1997]). Country Squire did not oppose that branch of the appellant’s motion which was for summary judgment on the cross claim for contractual indemnification, and thus failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Fairhaven Apts. No. 4, Inc. v Town of N. Hempstead,*8 AD3d 425 [2004]).

*979In addition, Country Squire failed to sufficiently plead the elements of common-law indemnification as its cross claim did not allege that the plaintiffs injury was due solely to the appellant’s negligent performance or nonperformance of an act solely within its province *(see Murphy v M.B. Real Estate Dev. Corp.,*280 AD2d 457 [2001]). In any event, the appellant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on Country Squire’s cross claim for common-law indemnification by showing that Country Squire’s liability, if any, would be based on its actual wrongdoing in failing to properly maintain its property, and not on its vicarious liability for the appellant’s conduct *(see Keshavarz v Murphy, supra).*In opposition, Country Squire failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Miller, J.P., Adams, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.
§ 970.204 Environmental and use conflict analysis. ( a ) *Environmental information.* To enable NOAA to implement better its responsibility under section 109(d) of the Act to develop an environmental impact statement (EIS) on the issuance of an exploration license, the application must include information for use in preparing NOAA's EIS on the environmental impacts of the activities proposed by the applicant. The applicant must present physical, chemical and biological information for the exploration area. This information should include relevant environmental information, if any, obtained during past exploration activities, but need not duplicate information obtained during NOAA's DOMES Project. Planned activities in the area, including the testing of integrated mining systems which simulate commercial recovery, also must be described. NOAA will need information with the application on location and boundaries of the proposed exploration area, and plans for delineation of features of the exploration area including baseline data or plans for acquiring them. The applicant may at his option delay submission of baseline and equipment data and system test plans. However, applicants so electing should plan to submit this latter information at least one year prior to the initial test, to allow time for the supplement to the site-specific EIS, if one is required, to be prepared by NOAA, circulated, reviewed and filed with EPA. The submission of this information with the application is strongly encouraged, however, to minimize the possibility that a supplement will be required. If such latter information is submitted subsequent to the original application such tests may not be undertaken in the absence of concurrence by NOAA (which, if applicable, will be required in a term, condition, or restriction in the license). NOAA has developed a technical guidance document which will provide assistance for the agency and the applicant, in consultation, to identify the details on information needed in each case. NOAA may refer to such information for purposes of other determinations under the Act as well. NOAA also will seek to facilitate other Federal and, as necessary, state decisions on exploration activities by functioning as lead agency for the EIS on the application and related actions by other agencies, including those pertaining to any onshore impacts which may result from the proposed exploration activities.
( b ) *Use conflict information.* To assist the Administrator in making determinations relating to potential use conflicts between the proposed exploration and other activities in the exploration area, pursuant to §§ 970.503, 970.505, and 970.520, the application must include information known to the applicant with respect to such other activities.
§ 436.6 Instructions for preparing disclosure documents. ( a ) It is an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act for any franchisor to fail to include the information and follow the instructions for preparing disclosure documents set forth in subpart C (basic disclosure requirements) and subpart D (updating requirements) of part 436. The Commission will enforce this provision according to the standards of liability under Sections 5, 13(b), and 19 of the FTC Act.
( b ) Disclose all required information clearly, legibly, and concisely in a single document using plain English. The disclosures must be in a form that permits each prospective franchisee to store, download, print, or otherwise maintain the document for future reference.
( c ) Respond fully to each disclosure Item. If a disclosure Item is not applicable, respond negatively, including a reference to the type of information required to be disclosed by the Item. Precede each disclosure Item with the appropriate heading.
( d ) Do not include any materials or information other than those required or permitted by part 436 or by state law not preempted by part 436. For the sole purpose of enhancing the prospective franchisee's ability to maneuver through an electronic version of a disclosure document, the franchisor may include scroll bars, internal links, and search features. All other features (e.g., multimedia tools such as audio, video, animation, pop-up screens, or links to external information) are prohibited.
( e ) Franchisors may prepare multi-state disclosure documents by including non-preempted, state-specific information in the text of the disclosure document or in Exhibits attached to the disclosure document.
( f ) Subfranchisors shall disclose the required information about the franchisor, and, to the extent applicable, the same information concerning the subfranchisor.
( g ) Before furnishing a disclosure document, the franchisor shall advise the prospective franchisee of the formats in which the disclosure document is made available, any prerequisites for obtaining the disclosure document in a particular format, and any conditions necessary for reviewing the disclosure document in a particular format.
( h ) Franchisors shall retain, and make available to the Commission upon request, a sample copy of each materially different version of their disclosure documents for three years after the close of the fiscal year when it was last used.
( i ) For each completed franchise sale, franchisors shall retain a copy of the signed receipt for at least three years.
PUBLIC LAW 104–312—OCT. 19, 1996 110 STAT. 3819

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3249:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 104–673 (Comm. on Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1996):

July 16, considered and passed House.

Oct. 3, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 104–312

104th Congress

An Act

To authorize appropriations for a mining institute or institutes to develop domestic

technological capabilities for the recovery of minerals from the Nation’s seabed,

and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SEABED MINERALS.

(a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 2(a) of the

Mining and Mineral Resources Research Institute Act of 1984 (30

U.S.C. 1222(a)) is amended by adding the following at the end

thereof:

‘‘There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary not more

than $1,800,000 for each of the fiscal years after fiscal year 1996

to be made available by the Secretary to an institute or institutes

experienced in investigating the continental shelf regions of the

United States, the deep seabed and near shore environments of

islands, and the Arctic and cold water regions as a source for

nonfuel minerals. Such funds are to be used by the institute or

institutes to assist in developing domestic technological capabilities

required for the location of, and the efficient and environmentally

sound recovery of, minerals (other than oil and gas) from the

Nation’s shallow and deep seabed.’’.

(b) SHORT TITLE.—Section 11 of such Act (30 U.S.C. 1201 note)

is amended to read as follows:

‘‘SEC. 11. SHORT TITLE.

‘‘This Act may be cited as the ‘Mining and Mineral Resources

Institutes Act’.’’.

Approved October 19, 1996.

Mining and

Mineral

Resources

Institutes Act.

Oct. 19, 1996

[H.R. 3249]
Second Amendment to Special Long-Term Restricted Stock Award Agreement



 Exhibit 10.17 
  
 SECOND AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT 
  
 This Second Amendment to Restricted Stock Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into by and between Kelly R.
Ginn, a resident of the State of Texas (“Grantee”), and NCI Building Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), effective as of the date fully executed by both parties as set forth below. 
  
 WHEREAS, the parties to this Amendment have entered into that certain
Restricted Stock Agreement, dated August 28, 2003, and the First Amendment to Restricted Stock Agreement dated May 27, 2004 (the “Agreement”), pursuant to which the Company awarded to Grantee a special, long-term grant of
restricted stock; and 
  
 WHEREAS, Section 16 of the
Agreement provides that the Agreement may be amended by a written agreement signed by both the Company and Grantee; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement as herein set forth; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby approve and adopt this Amendment as follows: 
  
 1. Section 4(a)(ii) of the Agreement shall be amended in its entirety as
follows: 
  
 “(ii) by the Company without
Cause or by Grantee’s voluntary resignation with Good Reason before all of the Awarded Shares become vested Awarded Shares, all of the Unvested Awarded Shares shall vest as of the Termination Date.” 
  
 2. Except as amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect in accordance with its terms. 
  
 3. Unless otherwise
indicated, all capitalized terms used in this Amendment, including the above preambles, shall have the same meanings ascribed to those terms in the Agreement. 
  

4. Any reference in the Agreement to the “Agreement” shall refer to the Agreement as amended by this Amendment. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Amendment as of the dates set forth below.

  

	
	
	/s/    KELLY R. GINN        
	Kelly R. Ginn
	
	 Date: October 24, 2005



  

			
	NCI BUILDINGS SYSTEMS, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/    FRANCES R. POWELL        
	 	 	Frances R. Powell
	 	 	Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
	
	 Date: October 24, 2005
### §10005. Model statute

In order to encourage the administration of accreditation and certification programs by the States, the Secretary shall prepare and transmit to the States a model statute for radiologic procedure safety. Such model statute shall provide that—

(1) it shall be unlawful in a State for individuals to perform radiologic procedures unless such individuals are certified by the State to perform such procedures; and

(2) any educational requirements for certification of individuals to perform radiologic procedures shall be limited to educational programs accredited by the State.

(Pub. L. 97–35, title IX, §980, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 600.)
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 quarterly report on Form 10-QSB (the "Report")
pursuant to Rule 15d-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of Narrowstep
Inc. (the "Company"), I, Iolo Jones, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

        (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a) or
78o(d); and

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


Dated:  January 11, 2006                /s/ Iolo Jones
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Iolo Jones
                                        Chief Executive Officer
VIRGINIA:

In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the 

City of Richmond on Thursday the 20th day of May, 2021.

Present: Lemons, C.J., and Goodwyn, Mims, Powell, Kelsey, and McCullough, JJ., and Koontz, 

S.J.

Karen Rompalo, Appellant,

against Record No. 200941

Court of Appeals No. 1717-18-4

Commonwealth of Virginia, Appellee.

Upon an appeal from a judgment

rendered by the Court of Appeals of 

Virginia.

In this case, we awarded Karen Rompalo an appeal from the judgment of the Court of 

Appeals, which affirmed her convictions on three counts of destroying a public record in 

violation of Code § 18.2-107. See Rompalo v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 147 (2020).

We have considered the record, briefs, and argument of counsel, and for the reasons 

stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, we will affirm the judgment.

This order shall be certified to the Court of Appeals of Virginia and to the Circuit Court 

of Fairfax County and shall be published in the Virginia Reports.

 A Copy,

 Teste:

Douglas B. Robelen, Clerk

 By:

Deputy Clerk