alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                    SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF THE CEO/CFO

                             EMS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                       AND
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

         Each of the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of EMS Technologies, Inc. hereby individually certifies that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended October 1,
2005, to which this Certification is attached, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of EMS
Technologies, Inc.

In witness whereof, each of the undersigned has executed and delivered this
Certification on this 14th day of November, 2005.

/s/ Alfred G. Hansen                      /s/ Don T. Scartz
------------------------------            -----------------------------
Alfred G. Hansen                          Don T. Scartz
Chief Executive Officer                   Chief Financial Officer
EMS Technologies, Inc.                    EMS Technologies, Inc.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7864
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus COLLIN HENRY, a/k/a Roy Mitchell, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR89-362-S, CA-97-3646-S) Submitted: March 26, 1998 Decided: April 7, 1998 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Collin Henry, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Perovich Gesner, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversibleerror. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court that Appellant failed to obtain authorization to file this successive motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). United States v. Henry , Nos. CR-89-362-S; CA-97-3646-S (D. Md. Oct. 22, 1997; Nov. 14, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### §3171. Congressional findings and declaration of policy

#### (a) Findings

Congress finds that there is increasing evidence of a relationship between diet and many of the leading causes of death in the United States: that improved nutrition is an integral component of preventive health care; that there is a serious need for research on the chronic effects of diet on degenerative diseases and related disorders; that nutrition and health considerations are important to United States agricultural policy; that there is insufficient knowledge concerning precise human nutritional requirements, the interaction of the various nutritional constituents of food, and differences in nutritional requirements among different population groups such as infants, children, adolescents, elderly men and women, and pregnant women; and that there is a critical need for objective data concerning food safety, the potential of food enrichment, and means to encourage better nutritional practices.

#### (b) Declaration of policy

It is declared to be the policy of the United States that the Department of Agriculture conduct research in the fields of human nutrition and the nutritive value of foods and conduct human nutrition education activities, as provided in this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 95–113, title XIV, §1421, Sept. 29, 1977, 91 Stat. 999.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1977, see section 1901 of Pub. L. 95–113, set out as an Effective Date of 1977 Amendment note under section 1307 of this title.

#### Nutrition Information and Awareness Pilot Program

Pub. L. 107–171, title IV, §4403, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 334, as amended by Pub. L. 110–234, title IV, §4406(c)(2), May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1142; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title IV, §4406(c)(2), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1903, directed the Secretary of Agriculture to establish, in not more than 5 States, for a period not to exceed 4 years for each participating State, a pilot program to increase the domestic consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 113–79, title IV, §4210, Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 830.
### §2303. Prohibited practices

It shall be unlawful for any handler knowingly to engage or permit any employee or agent to engage in the following practices:

(a) To coerce any producer in the exercise of his right to join and belong to or to refrain from joining or belonging to an association of producers, or to refuse to deal with any producer because of the exercise of his right to join and belong to such an association; or

(b) To discriminate against any producer with respect to price, quantity, quality, or other terms of purchase, acquisition, or other handling of agricultural products because of his membership in or contract with an association of producers; or

(c) To coerce or intimidate any producer to enter into, maintain, breach, cancel, or terminate a membership agreement or marketing contract with an association of producers or a contract with a handler; or

(d) To pay or loan money, give any thing of value, or offer any other inducement or reward to a producer for refusing to or ceasing to belong to an association of producers; or

(e) To make false reports about the finances, management, or activities of associations of producers or handlers; or

(f) To conspire, combine, agree, or arrange with any other person to do, or aid or abet the doing of, any act made unlawful by this chapter.

(Pub. L. 90–288, §4, Apr. 16, 1968, 82 Stat. 94.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Donald E. De Groat, Appellant.

Motion to prosecute appeal as a poor person granted. The appeal may be perfected upon one typewritten copy of the record and five typewritten copies of the brief. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ,
#### § 245.10 Scope.

This part applies to all U.S. territorial airspace and other airspace over which the FAA has air traffic control jurisdiction by international agreement.
##### 



Exhibit 23.1

Independent Auditors Consent

To the Board of Directors
CB Bancshares, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements Nos.
333-81279 and No. 333-64437 on Form S-8 of CB Bancshares, Inc. of our report
dated January 21, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of CB
Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the
related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders equity and
comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December
31, 2002, annual report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 of CB Bancshares, Inc.

KPMG LLP

Honolulu, Hawaii
November 7, 2003
### §2324. Restrictions on employees as to interest in plant variety protection

Employees of the Plant Variety Protection Office shall be ineligible during the periods of their employment, to apply for plant variety protection and to acquire directly or indirectly, except by inheritance or bequest, any right or interest in any matters before that office. This section shall not apply to members of the Plant Variety Protection Board who are not otherwise employees of the Plant Variety Protection Office.

(Pub. L. 91–577, title I, §4, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1542.)
#### James Smalls *v.*State of Connecticut

*Richard F. Jacobson,*assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

*Alan Neigher,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

Argued December 3

decided December 3, 1974

The defendant’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County is granted.
#### McCLOSKEY v. TOBIN, SHERIFF OF BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS.

ERROR TO THE COURT OP CRIMINAL APPEALS OP .THE STATE OP TEXAS.

No. 79.

Submitted November 12, 1919.

Decided March 1, 1920.

The rights under the Fourteenth Amendement of a layman engaged in the business of collecting and adjusting claims are not infringed by a state law prohibiting the solicitation of such employment. P. 108.

Affirmed.

The case is stated in the opinion.-

*Mr. R. H. Ward*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. B. F. Looney,*Attorney General of the State of Texas, and *Mr. Luther Nickels,*Assistant Attorney General of the State of Texas, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Brandéis

delivered the opinion of the. court.

Article 421 of.the Penal Code of Texas defined,, with much detail, the offence of barratry. In *McCloskey*v. *San Antonio Traction Co.,*192 S. W. Rep. 1116 (Texas), a decree for an injunction restraining the plaintiff in error from pursuing the practice of fomenting and adjusting claims was reversed on the ground that this section had superseded the common law offence of barratry and that by the Code “only an attorney at law is forbidden to solicit employment in any suit himself or by an agent.” Article 421 was then amended (Act of March 29, 1917, c. 133) so as to apply to any person who' “shall seek to ob*108tain employment in any claim, to prosecute, defend, present or collect the same by means of personal solicitation of such employment . . .” Thereafter McCloskey was arrested on an information which charged him with soliciting employment to collect two claims, one for personal injuries, the other for painting a buggy. He applied for a writ of *habeas corpas*which was denied both by the County Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals. The case comes here under § 237 of the Judicial Code, McCloskey having claimed below as here, that the act under which he was arrested violates rights guaranteed him by the Fourteenth Amendment.

The contention is, that since the State had made causes of action in tort as well as in contract assignable, *Galveston &c. Ry. Co.*v. *Ginther,*96 Texas, 295, they had become an article of commerce; that the business of obtaining adjustment of claims is not inherently evil; and that, therefore, while regulation was permissible, prohibition of the business violates rights of liberty and property and denies equal protection of the laws. The contention may be answered briefly. To prohibit solicitation is to regulate the business, not to prohibit it. Compare *Brazee*v. *Michigan,*241 U. S. 340. The evil against which the regulation is directed is one from which the English law has long sought to protect the community through proceedings for barratry and champerty. Co. Litt. p. 368 (Day’s Edition, 1812, vol. 2, § 701 [368, b.]); 1 Hawkins Pleas of the Crown, 6th ed., 524; *Peck*v. *Heurich,*167 U. S. 624, 630. Regulation which aims to bring the conduct of the business into harmony with ethical, practice of the legal profession, to which it is necessarily related, is obviously reasonable. *Ford*v. *Munroe,*144 S. W. Rep. 349 (Texas). The statute is not open to the objections urged against it.

*Affirmed.*
Complainant Exhibit C-3: Video recording ofdeposition ofJaime Tomchik A hard copy ofthis exhibit is on file with the FAA Docket Clerk at: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20597 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000
Phone: (202) 385-8229
### §7203. Handicapping condition

The President may prescribe rules which shall prohibit, as nearly as conditions of good administration warrant, discrimination because of handicapping condition in an Executive agency or in the competitive service with respect to a position the duties of which, in the opinion of the Office of Personnel Management, can be performed efficiently by an individual with a handicapping condition, except that the employment may not endanger the health or safety of the individual or others.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 523, §7153; renumbered §7203 and amended Pub. L. 95–454, title I, §101(b)(2), title VII, §703(a)(1), title IX, §906(a)(2), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1118, 1216, 1224.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 633(2)9. | June 10, 1948, ch. 434, 62 Stat. 351. |

Statutes at Large

The authority of the President to prescribe rules is added on authority of former section 633(1), which is carried into section 3302. The section is rewritten as a general prohibition instead of specifying the personnel actions included in former section 633(2)9. The words "in an Executive agency or in the competitive service" are added for clarity.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1978—Pub. L. 95–454, §703(a)(1), renumbered section 7153 of this title as this section.

Pub. L. 95–454, §§101(b)(2), 906(a)(2), substituted "Handicapping condition" for "Physical handicap" in section catchline, "handicapping condition" for "physical handicap" wherever appearing in text, and "Office of Personnel Management" for "Civil Service Commission".

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

#### Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by sections 101(b)(2) and 906(a)(2) of Pub. L. 95–454 effective 90 days after Oct. 13, 1978, see section 907 of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.
§ 553.45 Eligibility for interment in U.S. Disciplinary Barracks Cemetery at Fort Leavenworth. ( a ) Military prisoners who die while in Military custody and are not claimed by the person authorized to direct disposition of remains or other persons legally authorized to dispose of remains are permitted to be interred in the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks Cemetery. All decisions for interment in the U.S.D.B. Cemetery will be made by the Executive Director, ANMC.
( b ) Other persons approved by the Executive Director.
### **CHAPTER 1001—GENERAL PROVISIONS**

Sec.
100101.
Promotion and regulation.
100102.
Definitions.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.23


                        ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT
                                  MAY 13, 2005
                             NOTICE OF TERMINATION


                                                               November 21, 2005



Palisades Capital Management, LLC
One Bridge Plaza
Fort Lee, NJ 07024

Attention: Brian K. Fern, Chief Financial Officer


Ladies and Gentlemen:

         We refer to that certain agreement dated May 13, 2005, between you and
us (the "Agreement") pursuant to which you have provided certain administrative
services to us in consideration of a monthly fee of $3,000. Pursuant to the
terms of the Agreement, this letter will constitute notice of termination of the
Agreement, which termination shall become effective 30 days from the date
hereof. Any fees due under the Agreement should be prorated through the
effective date of such termination.

         If you have any questions relating to the foregoing, please do hesitate
to call the undersigned. Thank you for all your help.




                                                     Sincerely yours,

                                                     /s/ Michael Sorell

                                                     Michael Sorell
                                                     President and CEO
**UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION**

Washington, DC 20202

**M E M O R A N D U M**

TO:           Addressees (See list below)

FROM:       The Assistant Secretary

Office for Civil Rights

SUBJECT:Delegation of Authority to Certify Fund Availability

I. DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me by a delegation to all Principal Officers, from the Chief Financial Officer, EL/GEN/1, certified on December 3, 1998, I hereby delegate to you, your successor in function, and anyone serving for you in an acting capacity, the authority to certify funds available for administering the functions and responsibilities of your office.  This authority is issued pursuant to Title 31 of the U.S. Code, which governs the money and finances of the Department.

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the authority delegated herein are included in the scope of this delegation. 

II. RESERVATIONS

None.

III. REDELEGATIONS

This authority may not be redelegated.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department’s Principal Delegations Control Officer and supersedes delegations EC/ECR/222 and 

Page 2 – Delegation of Authority

EC/ECD-GEN/232.  I ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken by addressees prior to the date of certification.

___________/s/_____________

                                                                                            Russlynn Ali

ADDRESSEE List:  

OCR Enforcement Directors    

OCR Executive Officer    ◄▬▬▬

OCR Regional Office Director, Boston

OCR Regional Office Director, New York

OCR Regional Office Director, Philadelphia

OCR Regional Office Director Atlanta

OCR Regional Office Director, Dallas

OCR Regional Office Director, Chicago

OCR Regional Office Director, Cleveland

OCR Regional Office Director, Kansas City

OCR Regional Office Director, Denver

OCR Regional Office Director, San Francisco

OCR Regional Office Director, Seattle

OCR Regional Office Director, District of Columbia 

Certified Date:  11/2/2010

Departmental Delegations Control Officer:  /s/ Naty G. Beetle

Control Number:  EC/ECR/244
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00216-CV

IN RE CONNIE RAY PALMER RELATOR

------------

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

------------

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of 

the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, DAUPHINOT, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: August 6, 2013

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8(d).
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2023-2024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00226]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #16826 and #16827; OKLAHOMA Disaster Number OK-
00144]


Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public 
Assistance Only for the State of Oklahoma

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of OKLAHOMA (FEMA-
4575-DR), dated 12/21/2020.
    Incident: Severe Winter Storm.
    Incident Period: 10/26/2020 through 10/29/2020.

DATES: Issued on 12/21/2020.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 02/19/2021.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 09/21/2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 12/21/2020, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:
Primary Counties: Caddo, Canadian, Cleveland, Dewey, Grady, Kingfisher, 
Kiowa, Logan, Noble, Oklahoma, Payne, Pottawatomie, Roger Mills
    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere...      2.750
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.750
For Economic Injury:
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.750
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 16826B 
and for economic injury is 168270.


[[Page 2024]]


(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Cynthia Pitts,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2021-00226 Filed 1-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
#### Joseph F. Lombardo et al., Appellant, v Cedar Brook Golf & Tennis Club, Inc., Respondent.

[834 NYS2d 326]

*819In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ayres, J.), dated September 30, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Joseph F. Lombardo, an experienced golfer, who had played on the defendant’s golf course on numerous prior occasions, was injured when he slipped and fell on wet grass while descending from the 17th tee.

“[B]y engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” *(Morgan v State of New York,*90 NY2d 471, 484 [1997]; *Barboto v Hollow Hills Country Club,*14 AD3d 522 [2005]). “A participant consents to the risk of ‘those injury-causing events which are known, apparent or reasonably foreseeable consequences of the participation’ ” *(Sedita v City of New York,*8 AD3d 256, 257 [2004], quoting *Turcotte v Fell,*68 NY2d 432, 439 [1986]).

Here, the record demonstrates that the wet grass which caused the injured plaintiff to slip and fall was an open and obvious condition of which he was fully aware prior to the accident. Indeed, the injured plaintiff acknowledged that the course had been closed the day before “becaüse of torrential rains” and that he had played nearly an entire round of golf before the accident occurred. He therefore voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by playing on the wet surface *(see Barboto v Hollow Hills Country Club, supra).*Moreover, the affidavit of the plaintiffs’ expert did not identify any specific industry standard upon which he relied in concluding that the defendant negligently designed the course. Therefore, the affidavit of the plaintiffs’ expert was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact in response to the defendant’s establishment of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Romano v Stanley,*90 NY2d 444 [1997]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Santucci and Skelos, JJ, concur.