alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.A



















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 on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010, of El Paso Natural Gas Company (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James J. Cleary, President, certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
















/s/ James J. ClearyJames J. ClearyPresident(Principal Executive Officer)El Paso Natural Gas CompanyNovember 5, 2010


































A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to El Paso Natural Gas Company and will be retained by El Paso Natural Gas Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOSUE FAURELUS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 710 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of February, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Paul L. Blawie et al.

*Anthony T. Varone,*in support of the petition.

Submitted February 10

decided February 19, 1975

The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Court of Common Pleas is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1998
<CASH>                                          13,441
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,176
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (40)
<INVENTORY>                                      4,610
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,863
<PP&E>                                          21,775
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,158)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  62,860
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,980
<BONDS>                                         98,201
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                    (56,953)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    62,860
<SALES>                                         64,561
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,561
<CGS>                                           38,922
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,922
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,802
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    47
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,327
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,020
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,406
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,614
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (986)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,628
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    19.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    19.47
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.36 




At Will Employment
Compensation Arrangements for Executive Officers 



        
O’Sullivan does not have employment agreements with any of its executive officers other
than Messrs. Robert S. Parker and Rick A. Walters. It has compensation arrangements with its other
executive officers. The following describes the compensation arrangements for Michael
L. Franks: 



             
Mr. Frank’s at will compensation arrangement includes the following: 




	  	› 	a salary of $160,000 per year; 	  
	  	  	  	  
	  	› 	an automobile allowance of $8,000 per year; 	  
	  	  	  	  
	  	› 	a bonus target of 40% of his salary under O'Sullivan's incentive
compensation plan; 	 
	  	  	  	  
	  	›	the opportunity to participate in employee benefit and employee welfare
               plans, including 	  
	  	  	  	  



	 	›	O’Sullivan’s Savings and Profit Sharing Plan, 	 
	 	›	O’Sullivan’s Deferred Compensation Plan, and	 
	 	›	O’Sullivan’s Welfare Plan, which provides medical and
                dental insurance, life insurance in an amount equal to two times his salary and
                disability insurance;	 
	 	 	 	 



	 	›	three weeks of vacation per year;	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	›	payment by O’Sullivan of professional training and development
                  costs and the costs of dues for professional associations;	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	›	use of a cellular telephone;	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	›	an indemnification agreement in the form previously filed with
                  the Securities and Exchange Commission;	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	›	a termination protection agreement that provides certain benefits
                  in the event of a change in control of O’Sullivan, as described in our
                  annual reports on Form 10-K; and 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	›	options to purchase 7,500 shares of O’Sullivan Class A common
                  stock (200 shares vested as of June 30, 2005).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

MIKILONI MOLI, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-10085 

D.C. No. 1:17-cr-00334-DKW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2018**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN Circuit Judges. 

Mikiloni Moli appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 

170-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to 

distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine, and 

distribution of methamphetamine and cocaine, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-10085 

§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we 

affirm.

Moli contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing 

to address his non-frivolous arguments for a downward variance. We review for 

plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 

2010), and conclude that there is none. Contrary to Moli’s contentions, the record 

demonstrates that the district court considered Moli’s post-arrest admissions to law 

enforcement about distributing additional quantities of methamphetamine as 

evidence of his cooperation with law enforcement and treated it as a mitigating 

factor. The record also demonstrates that the court considered Moli’s arguments 

regarding his 2010 assault case and simply was not persuaded by them. Under the 

circumstances, the district court was not required to do more. See United States v. 

Sandoval-Orellana, 714 F.3d 1174, 1181 (9th Cir. 2013) (“If the record ‘makes 

clear that the sentencing judge listened to each argument’ and ‘considered the 

supporting evidence,’ the district court’s statement of reasons for the sentence . . . 

will be ‘legally sufficient.’” (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358

(2007))). 

Moli also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The 

district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 

51 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence of 170 months is substantively 
3 18-10085 

reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of 

the circumstances, including the large quantity of drugs Moli distributed, his

history of poly-substance abuse, and the need for deterrence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 

51. 

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

MEMORANDUM

TO: Deputy Ethics Officials

Ethics Division

FROM: The Designated Agency Ethics Official

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority to Review Public Financial Disclosure Reports of 

the Designated Agency Ethics Official

I. DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me by the Secretary through delegation EA/EGB/56, 

certified on October 5, 1992, I delegate to you the authority to review and certify the 

Public Financial Disclosure Reports filed by the Designated Agency Ethics Official. 

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments by law, rule, 

or regulation to the authority delegated herein are included within the scope of this 

delegation.

II. RESERVATIONS

There are no reservations.

III. REDELEGATIONS

This authority may not be redelegated.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department's Principal 

Delegation Control Officer and supersedes all previous delegations of this authority.

________/s/_______________

Karen Santoro

OGC Clearance and Date: /s/ David Berthiaume, 6/7/2006

Certified Date: 6/7/2006

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

Control Number: EGB3/EGB3/106
#### Rudolph Di Santo, Respondent, *v.*State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 41827.)

Third Department,

December 30, 1964.

*Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Grace K. Banoff*and *Paxton Blair*of counsel), for appellant.

*Markhoff, Gottlieb & Harkins (Nathan L. Levine*of counsel), for respondent.

Herlihy, J.

The State contends that this order is sufficiently broad to include general discovery and inspection and that the State is not subject to such pretrial procedure.

We determine that article 31 of the CPLR, captioned “ Disclosure ” is applicable to the Court of Claims, subject only to the limitation contained in CPLR 3102 (subd. [f]) which provides: “ (f) Action in court of claims. In an action in the court of claims, disclosure may be obtained only by order of that court.”

This proviso is a salutory one. With the many diversified divisions and departments of the State, to allow disclosures (which include general discovery and inspection) by any other method would be detrimental to the efficient operation of State departments.

*290In proposing and enacting article 31, the Legislature had before it the many court decisions where permission for such examination had been denied albeit the court was of the opinion that to allow the State such rights and deny the same to its adversary in the same proceeding was illogical and unjust. (See *Carey*v. *Standard*Brands, 12 A D 2d 233, 235, affd. 12 NY 2d 855.)

Considering the words of limitation in the section as to the manner of procedure, we must conclude that the drafters of the CPLR intended that article 31 should apply to actions in the Court of Claims. The CPLR is not intended to limit but rather to liberalize the former practice and this decision is in accordance with such intent.

The order should be affirmed.

G-ibson, P. J., Reynolds, Atjlisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs to respondent.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAn evaluation of thematic mapper simulator data for the geobotanical discrimination of rock types in Southwest OregonRock type identification may be assisted by the use of remote sensing of associated vegetation, particularly in areas of dense vegetative cover where surface materials are not imaged directly by the sensor. The geobotanical discrimination of ultramafic parent materials was investigated and analytical techniques for lithologic mapping and mineral exploration were developed. The utility of remotely sensed data to discriminate vegetation types associated with ultramafic parent materials in a study area in southwest Oregon were evaluated. A number of specific objectives were identified, which include: (1) establishment of the association between vegetation and rock types; (2) examination of the spectral separability of vegetation types associated with rock types; (3) determination of the contribution of each TMS band for discriminating vegetation associated with rock types and (4) comparison of analytical techniques for spectrally classifying vegetation.Document ID19840013847Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsWeinstock, K. J.*(Technicolor Government Services, Inc. Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Morrissey, L. A.*(Technicolor Government Services, Inc. Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1984Subject CategoryGeosciences (General)Report/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:166569NASA-CR-166569Accession Number84N21915Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 677-42-05CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS2-11101Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840013847.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
### §2616. Regulations

The Secretary is authorized to make such regulations with the force and effect of law, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter and the powers vested in him by this chapter.

(Pub. L. 91–670, title III, §307, Jan. 11, 1971, 84 Stat. 2042.)
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) 

Effective 1/6/2019
§ 634.27 Speed-measuring devices. Speed-measuring devices will be used in traffic control studies and enforcement programs. Signs may be posted to indicate speed-measuring devices are being used. ( a ) *Equipment purchases.* Installations will ensure operators attend an appropriate training program for the equipment in use.
( b ) *Training and certification standards.* ( 1 ) The commander of each installation using traffic radar will ensure that personnel selected as operators of such devices meet training and certification requirements prescribed by the State (or SOFA) in which the installation is located. Specific information on course dates, costs, and prerequisites for attending may be obtained by contacting the State agency responsible for police traffic radar training.
( 2 ) Installation commanders located in States or overseas areas where no formal training program exists, or where the military personnel are unable or ineligible to participate in police traffic radar training programs, may implement their own training program or use a selected civilian institution or manufacturer's course.
( 3 ) The objective of the civilian or manufacturer-sponsored course is to improve the effectiveness of speed enforcement through the proper and efficient use of speed-measurement radar. On successful completion, the course graduate must be able to— ( i ) Describe the association between excessive speed and accidents, deaths, and injuries, and describe the traffic safety benefits of effective speed control.
( ii ) Describe the basic principles of radar speed measurement.
( iii ) Identify and describe the Service's policy and procedures affecting radar speed measurement and speed enforcement.
( iv ) Identify the specific radar instrument used and describe the instrument's major components and functions.
( v ) Demonstrate basic skills in checking calibration and operating the specific radar instrument(s).
( vi ) Demonstrate basic skills in preparing and presenting records and courtroom testimony relating to radar speed measurement and enforcement.
( c ) *Recertification.* Recertification of operators will occur every 3 years, or as prescribed by State law.
§ 761.18 Appeals. ( a ) Appeals may be filed with the Entry Control Commander who issued the denial or revocation. It shall contain a complete statement of the purpose of the proposed entry and a statement of reasons why the entry should be authorized, including a showing that the entry will be consistent with the purposes of national defense.
( b ) Appeal letters shall be forwarded promptly to the next superior Entry Control Commander with an endorsement setting forth the reasons for the denial or revocation and a recommendation as to the action to be taken by the superior.
( c ) The superior may act on the appeal and notify the applicant of the decision, or he may forward the appeal to the next superior and notify the applicant of this referral.
[28 FR 13778, Dec. 18, 1963, as amended at 41 FR 28959, July 14, 1976]
### §2330. Publications

(a) The Secretary may publish, or cause to be published, in such format as the Secretary shall determine to be suitable, the following:

(1) The descriptions of plant varieties protected including drawings and photographs.

(2) The Official Journal of the Plant Variety Protection Office, including annual indices.

(3) Pamphlet copies of the plant variety protection laws and rules of practice and circulars or other publications relating to the business of the Office.

(b) The Secretary may (1) establish public facilities for the searching of plant variety protection records and materials, and (2) from time to time, as through an information service, disseminate to the public those portions of the technological and other public information available to or within the Plant Variety Protection Office to encourage innovation and promote the progress of plant breeding.

(c) The Secretary may exchange any of the publications specified for publications desirable for the use of the Plant Variety Protection Office. The Secretary may exchange copies of descriptions, drawings, and photographs of United States protected plant varieties for copies of descriptions, drawings, and photographs of applications and protected plant varieties of foreign countries.

(Pub. L. 91–577, title I, §10, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1543; Pub. L. 96–574, §§5–8, Dec. 22, 1980, 94 Stat. 3350; Pub. L. 103–349, §13(b), Oct. 6, 1994, 108 Stat. 3143.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–349 substituted "the Secretary" for "he" before "shall" in introductory provisions.

1980—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 96–574, §5, substituted provisions respecting descriptions for provisions respecting specifications.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 96–574, §§6, 7, struck out subsec. (b) which related to photolithography and lithography, redesignated subsec. (c) as (b) and substituted "plant breeding" for "the useful arts".

Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 96–574, §§7, 8, redesignated subsec. (d) as (c) and substituted "descriptions" for "specifications" in two places. Former subsec. (c) redesignated (b).

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

#### Effective Date of 1994 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–349 effective 180 days after Oct. 6, 1994, see section 15 of Pub. L. 103–349, set out as a note under section 2401 of this title.
### §6406. Regulations

The Secretary may issue such regulations as may be necessary to carry out this chapter and the powers vested in the Secretary by this chapter.

(Pub. L. 101–624, title XIX, §1999G, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3916.)
#### McGONIGLE v. KEATING.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 6, 1903.)

1. Appeal from City Court—Review.

On appeal from an order of affirmance by the General Term of the City Court, only questions of law can be reviewed; the facts found in the City Court being conclusive.

Appeal from City Court of New York, General Term.

Action by Henry J. McGonigle against John Keating. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

R. L. Turl, for appellant.

J. L. Weinberg, for respondent.

BLANCHARD, J.

As this is an appeal from an order of affirmance of the General Term of the City Court, it is to be determined, not upon the case, but upon the exceptions taken upon the trial to the rulings of the court. We are limited merely to a review of questions of law, as the facts found in the City Court are conclusive upon us. We have examined the exceptions taken during the trial to the rulings of the trial court, and we find them to be without merit.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur
**BNP      U.S. FUNDING L.L.C.**

**COMPUTATION      OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**

**AND      PREFERRED SECURITIES DIVIDENDS**

|                                                                                               |   | **For                the Three months Ended March 31, 2007 (unaudited)** |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Fixed                charges:                                                                      |   |                                                                     |   |   |
| Trustee                fees                                                                        |   |                                                                     | 33     |   |
| Total                fixed charges                                                                 |   |                                                                     | 243    |   |
| Fixed                charges, as above                                                             |   |                                                                     | 243    |   |
| Preferred                securities dividend                                                       |   |                                                                     | ---    |   |
| Ratio                of earnings to fixed charges and preferred securities                dividend |   |                                                                     | 44.44  |   |