alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 260.4 Policy. It is DoD policy that a DoD Component having accountability for real property shall extend priority on such property to the blind when implementing the Randolph-Sheppard Act, as set out in the following paragraphs: ( a ) The blind shall be given priority in the establishment and operation of vending facilities.
( b ) The blind shall be given priority in the award of contracts to operate cafeterias.
( c ) In conjunction with acquisition or substantial alteration or renovation of a building, satisfactory sites shall be provided for operation of blind vending facilities.
( d ) Specified income from vending machines operated on DoD-controlled property by a DoD Component either directly or by contract shall be given to State licensing agencies.
EXHIBIT 15.1

Eckerd Corporation
Largo, Florida

Ladies and Gentlemen:

RE: Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-50223)

With respect to the subject registration statement, we acknowledge our awareness
of the use therein of our report dated December 8, 1997 related to our review of
interim  financial  information,  which  report was included in the Form 10-Q of
Eckerd  Corporation  for the thirteen and  thirty-eight  weeks ended October 25,
1997 .

Pursuant to Rule 436(c)  under the  Securities  Act of 1933,  such report is not
considered  a part of a  registration  statement  prepared  or  certified  by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.


/s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Tampa, Florida
December 8, 1997
#### Minnie Novins, Appellant, v. Joseph Sklar et al., Respondents.

Motion by appellant to dispense with printing granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers (including the typed minutes) and on appellant’s typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file six copies of her typewritten brief and to serve one copy on respondent. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
#### § 1657.3 District appeal boards.

The Director shall establish district appeal boards with jurisdiction to determine appeals of claims of overseas registrants. Such boards shall consist of three or more members appointed by the President. The Director shall prescribe the geographic jurisdiction of each board.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Twenty Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack C. Bridges, Executive Vice-President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ Jack C. BridgesJack C. BridgesExecutive Vice-President11/14/06Date
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-10085

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:16-cr-00404-EAK-JSS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JARVIS RODRICK THOMAS,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(September 10, 2019)

Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 19-10085 Date Filed: 09/10/2019 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Thomas Burns, appointed counsel for Jarvis Thomas in this direct criminal 

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and 

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our 

independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the 

relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the 

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is 

GRANTED, and Thomas’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. Further, 

Thomas’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED AS MOOT. 

Case: 19-10085 Date Filed: 09/10/2019 Page: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David L. Hauser, Group Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Duke Energy, 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 Duke Energy.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ DAVID L. HAUSER                                                          
|David L. Hauser Group Vice President and Chief Financial Officer May 10, 2005
Exhibit 10.40

December 8, 2005

U. S. Stock Transfer Corporation 17645 Gardena Avenue, Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91204

Attention:        Bridget Barela
                  Assistant Vice President

                  Re: Indemnity to Cover Reissue of Lost Certificates
                  ---------------------------------------------------


Ladies and Gentlemen:

I, the duly appointed and acting Secretary of INDEMNITOR certify that I have
been expressly authorized to execute this INDEMNITY pursuant to a resolution of
the Board of Directors of Temecula Valley Bancorp Inc., a California corporation
("INDEMNITOR"); INDEMNITOR agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold U. S. STOCK
TRANSFER CORPORATION ("INDEMNITEE") harmless against and from any and all
claims, demands, losses, costs, expenses, obligations, actions, liabilities or
damages, including interest and attorneys' fees INDEMNITEE may incur or suffer,
which arise, result from, or relate to INDEMNITOR'S authorizing INDEMNITEE to
proceed with the issuance of a new certificate or certificates without indemnity
bond with respect to two allegedly lost common stock certificate as follows: 1)
Certificate No. TVB5824 for 5344 shares registered in the name of Steven W.
Aichle, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan; and 2) Certificate No. TVB5823 for 66900
shares registered in the name of Steven W. Aichle & Colleen A. Aichle, Trustees
of the Aichle 1996 Family Trust. Please mail the newly issued certificate(s)
directly to Mr. Aichle.

INDEMNITEE must give INDEMNITOR written notice of the claim or threatened claim
which is indemnified hereby within then (10) business days after receipt of a
claim or threat of such a claim or an offer or proposal to settle an indemnified
claim. INDEMNITOR agrees to promptly pay any claim or settlement thereof of
which it got notice from INDEMNITEE, or any ensuing judgment thereon, together
with all legal expenses connected with any indemnification claim and the defense
or resolution thereof.


TEMECULA VALLEY BANCORP INC.

/s/ Donald A. Pitcher
----------------------------
Donald A. Pitcher, Secretary
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Handleman Company (the Registrant) that the Annual Report of the
Registrant on Form 10-K for the period ended May 1, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Registrant at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Registrant for such period.



|                    |  |  |  |                                                                
|------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: June 17, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/A.A. Koch                                                   
|                    |  |  |  | A. A. KOCH
President and
Chief Executive Officer               
|                    |  | 
|Date: June 17, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/Rozanne Kokko                                               
|                    |  |  |  | ROZANNE KOKKO
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

These certifications are not deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification will not be deemed incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent the Registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
§ 21.340 What are the procedures for requesting and documenting deviations? ( a ) DoD Components must submit copies of justifications and agency approvals for individual deviations and written requests for class deviations to: Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, ATTN: Basic Research, 3030 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3030.
( b ) Grants officers and agreements officers must maintain copies of requests and approvals for individual and class deviations in award files.
[68 FR 47153, Aug. 7, 2003, as amended at 85 FR 51240, Aug. 19, 2020]
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19D0114. ARNOLD A. BOTCHWAY v. THE STATE.

In 2017, Arnold Botchway pleaded guilty to multiple counts of identity fraud,

forgery, and theft by taking. He received an aggregate sentence of fifteen years, to

serve five in confinement and the remainder on probation. In April 2018, Botchway

filed a motion to vacate void sentences, arguing that certain counts should have

merged. The trial court denied the motion, and Botchway applied to this Court for

discretionary review. We dismissed the application because Botchway failed to raise

a valid void-sentence claim. See Case No. A18D0470 (decided June 14, 2018).

Back in the trial court, Botchway filed a second motion to vacate a void

sentence, arguing that hissentences were legally required to be concurrentrather than

consecutive. On July 26, 2018, the trial court denied the motion, and on September

24, 2018,Botchway filed this application for discretionary appeal. We, however, lack

jurisdiction because the application was not timely filed.

To be timely, an application for discretionary appeal must be filed within 30

days of the entry of the order or judgment to be appealed. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d).

The requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept

an application for appeal not made in compliance therewith. See Boyle v. State, 190

Ga. App. 734, 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). Because Botchway did not file his

application until 60 days after the entry of the order he seeks to appeal, the

application is untimely. 

October 17, 2018
This application is therefore DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

10/17/2018
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: GlenCanyon National Recreation Area, Rainbow Bridge National Monument: the officialnewspaper**
 
2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
 
SuDoc Number:I 29.21/2: G 48/
Item Number:0650-A-01 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001016153
 
May 30, 2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                                             <C>                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           Year                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Feb-01-1998          Jan-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          Feb-03-1997          Feb-02-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            Feb-01-1998          Aug-02-1998
<CASH>                                        2,555               5,492
<SECURITIES>                                      0                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 3,158               2,965
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0                   0
<INVENTORY>                                 103,445             113,562
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            111,289             123,754
<PP&E>                                       70,774              76,174
<DEPRECIATION>                              (30,627)            (33,256)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              158,114             173,306
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        35,303              39,751
<BONDS>                                           0                   0
<COMMON>                                          1                   1
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0                   0
<PREFERRED>                                       0                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                   80,393              83,354
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                158,114             173,306
<SALES>                                     323,254              90,360
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            323,254              90,360
<CGS>                                       212,982              59,750
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               212,982              59,750
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            3,525               1,068
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              12,281               2,569
<INCOME-TAX>                                  4,790                 980
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           7,491               1,589
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                  7,491               1,589
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.47                 .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.46                 .31
        

</TABLE>
#### § 57.19067 Trips during shift changes.

During shift changes, an authorized person shall be in charge of each trip in which persons are hoisted.
### §460. Prohibition of the Terrorism Information and Prevention System

Any and all activities of the Federal Government to implement the proposed component program of the Citizen Corps known as Operation TIPS (Terrorism Information and Prevention System) are hereby prohibited.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title VIII, §880, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2245.)
### SUBCHAPTER I—UNIFORMS
### Mineralization, mining, and mineral resources in the Beaver Creek area of the Grenville Lowlands in St. Lawrence County, New York

By: C. Erwin Brown

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1279

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
TYNESHA M. LEWIS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 1270

_______ ______________________/

Opinion filed October 20, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County

. Michael Flowers , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appel lant; Tynesha M. Lewis, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm this Anders 1 appeal but do so without prejudice to the appellant

filing a timely rule 3.850 motion to address the claim raised in her pro se initial

1 Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).2 brief, which, from the record, appears to have merit but which has not been

preserved for this appeal. 2

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, WETHERELL, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.

2 We further note tha t the 10

- year sentence imposed for the third

- degree felony in

14

- CF

- 2478 is illegal because it exceeds the statutory maximum. This issue has also not been preserved for this appeal.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00885-CR

Victor Perez PRADO,

Appellant

v.

The State 

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5355

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 29, 2015

DISMISSED

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal in compliance with Rule 42.2(a). See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). The motion is granted and this appeal is dismissed. See id.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Twenty Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack C. Bridges, Executive Vice-President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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/ Jack C. BridgesJack C. BridgesExecutive Vice-PresidentMay 10, 2006Date
#### § 257.3 Definition.

*Service of Process.* When applied to the filing of a court action against an officer or agency of the United States, service of process refers to the delivery or, when appropriate, receipt by mail, of a summons and complaint made in accordance with Rule 4, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by serving the United States and by serving a copy of the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail to such officer or agency. It further signifies the delivery of a subpoena requiring a witness to appear and give testimony or of a subpoena requiring production of documents, or delivery of a subpoena for any other reason whether or not the matter involves the United States.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7189

GEORGE BRIDGES, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JERRY R. TOWNSEND, Assistant Warden; ELIZA S. WILLIS, 

Treatment Program Supervisor; M. K. LEFEVERS, NCC Unit 

Manager,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (2:12-cv-00703-MSD-TEM)

Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Bridges, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Hoehl O’Shea, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

George Bridges, Jr., appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. See Bridges v. Townsend, No. 2:12-cv-00703-MSD-TEM (E.D. 

Va. filed July 2, 2015, entered July 6, 2015). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### SUBCHAPTER V—STUDENT-EMPLOYEES