alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

                   Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350

     In connection with the filing with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission of Emergent Group Inc.'s (the "Company") Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify that (i) in our capacities as officers of the Company,
(ii) to each of our own respective actual knowledge, and (iii) solely for the
purpose of compliance with 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, that:

     (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of ss.13(a) or 15(d)
          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.

     The above certification is given as of the date of the Report and is
limited to the periods covered by the Report. The above certification is made
severally and not jointly.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate on May
14, 2004.



                                            By:/s/ Bruce J. Haber
                                            ------------------
                                            Bruce J. Haber
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 27, 2017

s1218

Order 

Clerk

December 27, 2017

154884

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154884

COA: 334040

Wayne CC: 09-013374-FC

DEREK TERRELL WORTHY, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 12, 2016 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
§ 206.47 Property standards; repair work. ( a ) *Need for repairs.* Properties must meet the applicable property requirements of the Commissioner in order to be eligible. Properties that do not meet the property requirements must be repaired in order to ensure that the repaired property will serve as adequate security for the insured mortgage.
( b ) *Assurance that repairs are made.* The mortgage may be closed before the repair work is completed if the Commissioner estimates that the cost of the remaining repair work will not exceed 15 percent of the maximum claim amount and the mortgage contains provisions approved by the Commissioner concerning payment for the repairs.
( c ) *Reimbursement to contractor.* When repair work is completed after closing by a contractor, the mortgagee shall cause one or more inspections of the property to be made by an inspector or other qualified individual acceptable to the Commissioner in order to ensure that the repair work is satisfactory, and prior to the release of funds from the Repair Set Aside. The mortgagee shall hold back a portion of the contract price attributable to the work done before each interim release of funds, and the total of the hold backs will be released after the final inspection and approval of the release by the mortgagee. The mortgagee shall ensure that all mechanics' and materialmen's liens are released of record.
( d ) *Reimbursement to borrower.* The mortgagee shall not reimburse the borrower for any labor the borrower performed. The mortgagee may reimburse the borrower for the actual cost of repair materials from the Repair Set Aside, provided that the mortgagee causes one or more inspections of the property by an inspector or other qualified individual acceptable to the Commissioner and meets all reimbursement requirements established by the Commissioner.
( e ) *HECM for Purchase.* For HECM for Purchase transactions, where major property deficiencies threaten the health and safety of the homeowner or jeopardize the soundness and security of the property, all repairs must be completed by the seller prior to closing. Appraisers shall complete the appraisal report as “Subject To” the completion of the repairs.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

F:\3913\0001\cf\Substitution of Attorney.doc 

Shane Singh, Bar No. 202733 

ssingh@kringandchung.com 

KRING & CHUNG, LLP 

2620 J Street, # 1 

Sacramento, California 95816-4381 

Telephone: (916) 266-9000 

Facsimile: (916) 266-9001 

Attorneys for Defendant 

SAMUDRA PRIYA DIAS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SUSAN JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SAMUDRA PRIYA DIAS, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. C-09-02886 JCS 

SUBSTITUTION OF 

ATTORNEYS; ORDER; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF 

RECORD: 

Defendant SAMUDRA PRIYA DIAS hereby substitutes Shane Singh of Kring 

& Chung LLP, 2620 J Street, #1, Sacramento, California 95816, Telephone Number 

(916) 266-9000, Facsimile Number (916) 266-9001 as their attorney of record in the 

above-entitled action instead of SAMUDRA PRIYA DIAS, who is acting in Propria 

Persona. This substitution may be signed in facsimile counter parts in order to avoid 

delay. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:09-cv-02886-JCS Document 22 Filed 04/16/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:09-cv-02886-JCS Document20 Filed04/15/10 Page1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

F:\3913\0001\cf\Substitution of Attorney.doc 

I have read this substitution of attorneys and consent to the foregoing 

substitution. 

Dated: March 24, 2010 

By: /s/ Samudra Priya Dias (on file with counsel)

Samudra Priya Dias 

Defendant in Propria Persona

We accept the above substitution. 

Dated: March 24, 2010 KRING & CHUNG, LLP 

By: /s/ Shane Singh, Esq.

Shane Singh 

Attorneys for Defendant 

SAMUDRA PRIYA DIAS 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: , 2010 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case3:09-cv-02886-JCS Document20 Filed04/15/10 Page2 of 2

04/16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Case 3:09-cv-02886-JCS Document 22 Filed 04/16/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Faye Crapnell, appellant, v. Goff Crapnell, appellee.

Gen. Nos. 7,190 and 7,191.

Motion to set aside divorce decree. Motion denied. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Mercer county; the Hon. William T. Church, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1923.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Opinion filed September 7, 1923.

Montgomery, Hart & Smith and D. A. Hebei, for appellant; Irving Herriott, of counsel. Watson, Duvall & Kadyk and Church & Allen, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DONNELL HATCHER,

Defendant. /

No. CR 09-00625 CRB

 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

In this case, which is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, see Notice of

Appeal (dkt. 248); Notice of Appeal (dkt. 252); Notice of Appeal (dkt. 266), and which was

recently transferred to this Court, see Order Reassigning Cases (dkt. 273), there are 15

motions currently pending: 

1. Motion to Re-Appoint Counsel (dkt. 135);

2. Motion for Relief of Final Judgment (dkt. 136);

3. Motion to Appoint Counsel (dkt. 138);

4. Motion to Strike Late Motions (dkt. 153);

5. Motion for a Deadline Date (dkt. 162);

6. Motion for Relief “Double Jeopardy” (dkt. 190);

7. Motion for Relief 60(d)(3) (dkt. 208);

8. Motions for Copies of Motions (dkt. 223);

Case 3:09-cr-00625-CRB Document 278 Filed 06/03/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

9. 2255 Motion (dkt. 263);

10. Motion for the Relief of Counsel and Self Representation (dkt. 265);

11. Motion for the Substitute of Counsel (dkt. 267);

12. Motion to Set Aside, Vacate or Correct Sentence (dkt. 268); and

13. Motion for Relief of Counsel (dkt. 269);

14. Reconsideration Motion (dkt. 274);

15. Motion to Vacate (dkt. 275).

All of the pending motions are DENIED. Defendant Donnell Hatcher is advised to direct his

concerns to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2015 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cr-00625-CRB Document 278 Filed 06/03/15 Page 2 of 2
EX-10.1




 Exhibit 10.1 

Costco Wholesale Corporation 

Executive Bonus Plan 
 For fiscal year 2023,
executive officers other than the Chief Executive Officer and the President are eligible for a bonus of up to approximately $232,000. This amount includes $80,000 based on the achievement of specified targets relating to sales and $80,000 based on
the achievement of specified targets relating to pre-tax income. The potential payment attributable to each of these performance goals may be from zero to up to 120% of the award target amount, based
on the level of achievement of the goal. Up to $40,000 can be earned relating to environmental and social objectives: $24,000 relating to achievement of quantitative performance metrics (including metrics concerning diversity equity and inclusion,
resource consumption, and other emissions and environmental-related areas); and up to $16,000 based on a discretionary assessment by the Chief Executive Officer of the officers’ environmental and social achievements (including, without
limitation, progress in controlling emissions). 
 For fiscal year 2023, the Chief Executive Officer is eligible to receive a bonus of up to $700,000. This
amount includes $250,000 based on the achievement of specified targets relating to sales and $250,000 based on the achievement of specified targets relating to pre-tax income. The potential payment
attributable to each of these performance goals may be from zero to up to 120% of the award target amount, based on the level of achievement of the goal. Up to $100,000 can be earned relating to environmental and social objectives for achievement of
quantitative performance metrics (including metrics concerning diversity equity and inclusion, resource consumption, and other emissions and environmental-related areas). 

For fiscal 2023, the President is eligible to receive a bonus of up to $464,000. This amount includes $160,000 based on the achievement of specified targets
relating to sales and $160,000 based on the achievement of specified targets relating to pre-tax income. The potential payment attributable to each of these performance goals may be from zero to up to 120% of
the award target amount, based on the level of achievement of the goal. In addition, up to $80,000 can be earned relating to environmental and social objectives for achievement of quantitative performance metrics (as discussed above for executive
officers). 
 The final bonus amounts are subject to the approval of the Compensation Committee. To be eligible for the annual bonus, an individual must be
employed by the Company at the time bonus checks are issued (November).
### §74. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, R.S. §2228, acts Oct. 28, 1921, ch. 114, §1, 42 Stat. 208; Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 462, 43 Stat. 1145, which authorized President to transfer duties of register in any district to Supervisor of Surveys, was omitted pursuant to Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1946, §403, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7876, 60 Stat. 1100. See note set out under section 1 of this title.
# Zambia

As of December 2017, FEWS NET has ended its presence in Zambia and is no longer preparing regular food security reports. Analysts outside Zambia will continue to monitor the food security situation and will draft special reports as needed to provide early warning or in-depth analysis of severe food insecurity.

Minimal acute food insecurity outcomes expected to continue

                                  - Acute food insecurity remains Minimal (IPC Phase 1) following the above-average harvest this year, resulting in increased food availability for farming households and improved food access for households that dependent on market purchases. Poorer households will be accessing additional food or cash when hired for labor by better-off households during the peak period (Oct-Dec) for agricultural labor demand for the 2017/18 production season. Minimal (IPC Phase 1) area outcomes are likely to continue throughout the entire outlook period. 
                                  - Since the arrival of harvest supplies on the market in June 2017, market activity has been lower than normal. Prices are at an all-time low due to the large harvest, large carryover stocks from the previous season, and limited regional markets for large traders. Maize prices are expected to remain below average and will peak at much low er levels than typical during the February and March 2018 period. 
                                  - Even in the absence of the export ban, formal maize export volumes this season are much lower than in previous years. In contrast, informal exports to the Democratic Republic of the Congo are normal and demand for maize meal is higher than demand for grain due to the reduced meal prices. High demand from Tanzanian traders in the northern parts of the country has increased the flow of maize to deficit areas in the East Africa region. 

Zambia Price Bulletin

Zambia Price Bulletin

Zambia Price Bulletin

Zambia Price Bulletin

Zambia Price Bulletin

Zambia Price Bulletin

The Seasonal Calendar shows the annual and cyclical patterns of key food and income sources in a country throughout the typical year.

USGS-provided data and imagery supports FEWS NET's monitoring efforts of weather and climate throughout the world.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-1475

___________________________

Lucindo A. Mazariegos-Herrera; Daisy Mabel Mazariegos; Jason J.A.

Mazariegos-Garcia; Benjamin Leiva Masariegos

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners

v.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: November 20, 2013

Filed: December 5, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Lucindo Mazariegos-Herrera, his wife Daisy Mazariegos, his son Jason

Mazariegos-Garcia, and his uncle Benjamin Leiva Masariegos, citizens of Guatemala,

petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming

an immigration judge’s denial of their renewed and consolidated applications for
asylum and withholding of removal. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s

determination that the asylum application of Mazariegos-Herrera and his derivative

beneficiaries was barred as untimely filed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); Ngure v.

Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 988–89 (8th Cir. 2004). After careful review, we conclude

that the BIA’s denial of asylum as to Leiva Masariegos—and its denial of withholding

of removal as to all petitioners—was supported by substantial evidence on the record

as a whole. See Cubillos v. Holder, 565 F.3d 1054, 1056 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of

review for denial of asylum); Menjivar v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 918, 920–22 (8th Cir.

2005) (standard of review for denial of withholding of removal; discussing “unwilling

or unable to control” standard for non-governmental persecution). Accordingly, we

deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
02/27/2013 14:10 F~X 2024935142 

February 15, 2013 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk 

AGC-430 

&00 Independence Avenue SW 

Wilbur Wright Building 

Suite 2W I 000 

Washington. DC 20591 

William Vines • .Esquire 

Oflice of Regional Counsel 

Southern Region 

.Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, Georgia 30320 

FAA 

<~-~j .. ~~ ..... ""'II: I I.I..U. 

When experience matters. 

2561 Rescue Way 

Rrooksville, FL 34604 

PI I- 352-796-:2540 I FX - 352-796~2549 

-l- OMS ll!001/001 

RECEIVED 

FEB 1 9 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

"'"'""J 

REQUEST FOR HEARING ON FINAL NOTICE 0~"' PROPOSED PENAl~ TV BY 

WORLDWIDE AIRCRAt"'T SERVICESt INC. 

Worldwide Aircraft Services, Inc. responds to the Final Notice of Proposed Civil penalty and 

denies the allegations contained in the letter. As a result, Worldwide hereby requests a hearing on the 

Final Notice as setlbrth in the Final Notice. 

M" hael I ~~17~- foncycutl 

President 

Worldwide Aircraft Services, Inc.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3165 

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act to provide for criminal 

liability for willful safety standard violations resulting in the death of 

contract employees. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 30, 2005 

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas (for himself, Mr. OWENS, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of 

Texas, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, and Mr. WAXMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act to provide 

for criminal liability for willful safety standard violations 

resulting in the death of contract employees. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE. 

4 Section 17(e) of the Occupational Safety and Health 

5 Act (29 U.S.C. 666(e)) is amended by inserting ‘‘including 
2 

•HR 3165 IH 

1 contract employees who are contracted by the employer,’’ 

2 after ‘‘employee,’’. 

Æ
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARSHALL NAIFY REVOCABLE

TRUST,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 09-01604 CRB

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING

The parties are ordered to file briefs not to exceed seven pages in response to the

following proposition:

Despite the fact that the Estate might have foreseen an audit as to Naify’s 1999

California tax return, because no audit or investigation had been initiated at the time

of death, and because Naify had made an estimated tax payment not reflecting the

Mimosa transaction, there was therefore no claim on the estate at the time of death. 

See Treas. Reg. § 20.2053-4 (providing for a deduction for “obligations . . . existing at

the time of death”). The question therefore is not whether the claim was

“ascertainable with reasonable certainty,” id. § 20-2053-1(b)(3), but rather whether

there was a claim at all at the time of death.

Case 3:09-cv-01604-CRB Document 32 Filed 08/06/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2009\1604\Supplemental Briefing Order #2.wpd 2

Both parties are to file briefs by August 16, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-01604-CRB Document 32 Filed 08/06/10 Page 2 of 2
#### In re HITCHINS’ ESTATE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 8, 1905.)

In the matter of the estate of John Hitchins, deceased. No opinion. Mo*1129tion denied, on the ground that the order gives one bill of costs, to be divided between all respondents, and disbursements of each.
114 STAT. 1062 PUBLIC LAW 106–302—OCT. 13, 2000

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4583:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106–817 (Comm. on Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

Sept. 12, considered and passed House.

Oct. 3, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 106–302

106th Congress

An Act

To extend the authorization for the Air Force Memorial Foundation to establish

a memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the

Act entitled ‘‘An Act to authorize the Air Force Memorial Foundation to establish a memorial in the District of Columbia or its

environs’’, approved December 2, 1993 (Public Law 103–163), is

amended by adding at the end the following new section:

‘‘SEC. 4. LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY.

‘‘Notwithstanding section 10(b) of the Commemorative Works

Act (40 U.S.C. 1010(b)), the legislative authority for the Air Force

Memorial Foundation to establish a memorial under this Act shall

expire on December 2, 2005.’’.

Approved October 13, 2000.

40 USC 1003

note.

Oct. 13, 2000

[H.R. 4583]