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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Dynamic Materials Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Yvon Pierre Cariou, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto  Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(i)                  The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)               The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | July 29, 2010                     |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                   |   |
|   |                                   |   |
|   | /s/ Yvon Pierre Cariou                 |   |
|   | Yvon Pierre Cariou                     |   |
|   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   | of  Dynamic Materials Corporation      |   |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Dynamic Materials Corporation and will be retained by DynamicMaterials Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
#### 18.107 AbilityOne specification changes.

Contracting officers are not held to the notification required when changes in AbilityOne specifications or descriptions are required to meet emergency needs. (See 8.712(d).)

[73 FR 53995, Sept. 17, 2008]
# 2015 FOIA Log
Tuesday 1st October, 2002.
Diation Lamonte Langhorne, s/k/a Diatiaion Langhorne, Appellant, against Record No. 2124-99-2 Circuit Court No. 95F59 Commonwealth of Virginia, Appellee.
Upon Remand from the Supreme Court of Virginia
In accordance with the order of the Supreme Court of Virginia entered on March 22, 2002, the opinion previously rendered by this Court on March 6, 2001 is withdrawn, the mandate entered on that date is vacated and final judgment is entered reinstating the conviction of the appellant. This order shall be published and certified to the trial
court.
A Copy,
Teste: Cynthia L. McCoy, Clerk By: Deputy ClerkAppellee's Costs: Attorney's fee: $ 50.00 Appellee's brief: $ 24.20

Teste: Cynthia L. McCoy, Clerk By: Deputy Clerk

-2-

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS OF 

## V IRGINIA
Diation Lamonte Langhorne, s/k/a Diatiaion Langhorne, Appellant, against Record No. 2124-99-2 Circuit Court No. 95F59 Commonwealth of Virginia, Appellee.

I TEMIZED S TATEMENT OF C OSTS I, Cynthia L. McCoy, clerk of the Court of Ap peals of Virginia, do hereby certify that the appellee shall recover from the appell ant costs in this case as follows: Attorney's fee: $ 50.00 (Code § 17.1-624) Appellee's brief: $ 24.20 (Code § 17.1-605)
Given under my hand this 1st day of October, 2002.

Cynthia L. McCoy, Clerk By: Deputy Clerk

-3-
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 12 (Thursday, January 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 6405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01178]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #16844 and #16845; Utah Disaster Number UT-00080]


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

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 Utah (FEMA-4578-
DR), dated 01/12/2021.
    Incident: Straight-line Winds.
    Incident Period: 09/07/2020 through 09/08/2020.

DATES: Issued on 01/12/2021.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 03/15/2021.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 10/12/2021.

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 01/12/2021, 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: Davis, Morgan, Salt Lake, Weber.

    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 16844B 
and for economic injury is 168450.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Cynthia Pitts,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2021-01178 Filed 1-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-5021, -5022, -5023

ALABAMA AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC. - BIRMINGHAM,

Plaintiff-Cross Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

THE BOEING COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 08-CV-470,

Judge Charles F. Lettow.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The United States moves without opposition for a 14-day extension of time, until

May 28, 2009, to file its response to Alabama Aircraft Industries, Inc. — Birmingham's

motion to dismiss.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion for an extension of time is granted.

MAY 22 2009

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbalv

U.OT801l	

AL ItLU•TF"

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

MAY 2 2 2009

Jetli HORBALY

CLERK
cc:	David R. HazeIton, Esq.

Scott M. McCaleb, Esq.

Douglas K. Mickle, Esq.

s19

2009-5021, -5022, -5023 -	2
### §107. Repealed. Pub. L. 89–554, §8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 637, 642

Section, acts Aug. 18, 1894, ch. 301, §1, 28 Stat 391; Aug. 1, 1914, ch. 223, §1, 38 Stat. 666; June 5, 1920, ch. 235, §1, 41 Stat. 936, provided for appointment of commissioners of immigration at the several ports.
Order entered November 25, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01349-CV

TROY BROWN, Appellant

V.

CURTIS PENNINGTON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-12400

ORDER

We GRANT appellee’s November 24, 2014 unopposed motion for extension of time to 

file brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than December 29, 2014.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
**U.S. Department of Education**

**Higher Education Act**

**2013 Gainful Employment Negotiated Rulemaking Committee**

**Meeting Summary**

**September 9 - 11, 2013**

**Welcome**

Mr. Jeff Appel, Deputy Under Secretary of the Department, welcomed the members of the Gainful Employment Negotiating Committee and thanked them for agreeing to assist the Department in developing proposed regulations to address gainful employment issues. 

**Introductions**

All members in attendance introduced themselves. 

**Overview of the Negotiated Rulemaking Process**

The facilitators provided an overview of the negotiated rulemaking process. They explained that the Committee’s discussions would focus on developing consensus regulatory text for the Department’s proposed rule on gainful employment. 

**Review and Adopt Minutes**

This was the initial meeting of this Negotiating Committee, so there were no minutes from a previous meeting. 

# Organizational Protocols and Membership 

The members of the Committee discussed and approved the draft Organizational Protocols.   The membership of the Committee, primaries and alternates, was discussed.  Nominations for additions to the committee were made from those in attendance from the public.  There was not a consensus on adding the nominated individuals to the Committee. The membership of the 2103 Gainful Employment Negotiated Rulemaking Committee is: 

**Review Negotiating Agenda of Issues**

The Committee discussed the agenda for the meeting.  The Committee agreed that the discussion of issues would begin with the draft regulatory text that was circulated by the Department before the meeting.

# Public Comment

# Several opportunities were provided for the public to provide comment.  No comments were received from the public at the end of Day 1. Comments from the public were received at the end of the second and the third days of the meeting.

**Next Steps**

The Non-Federal Negotiators formed several informal Working Groups on the following issues:

Repayment rates

Placement rates

Transition period 

Cohort default rates 

Upfront program eligibility

Student consequences 

Opportunity to Improve??

Prior to the next meeting, the Department will review the proposals from the Working Groups, as well as proposals from other Negotiators, and will provide draft regulatory text to the Committee.****
#### § 720.2 Delivery when persons are within the territorial limits of the requesting State.

When the delivery of any member or civilian is requested by local civil authorities of a State for an offense punishable under the laws of that jurisdiction, and such person is located at a Navy or Marine Corps installation within the requesting jurisdiction, or aboard a ship within the territorial waters of such jurisdiction, commanding officers are authorized to and normally will deliver such person when a proper warrant is issued. In the case of a member, delivery will only be effected upon compliance with § 720.6, subject to the exceptions in § 720.9. A judge advocate of the Navy or Marine Corps should be consulted before delivery is effected. The rule discussed above applies equally to civilian employees and civilian contractors and their employees when located on a Navy or Marine Corps installation, except that compliance with § 720.6 and consideration of § 720.9 are not required (for purposes of this part, “State” includes the District of Columbia, territories, commonwealths, and all possessions or protectorates of the United States). Commands should normally not become actively involved in civilian law enforcement. When a command has determined that a person is to be delivered in response to a valid warrant, the following guidance should be considered. If the person to be delivered is a military member, the member may be ordered to report to a location designated by the commanding officer and surrendered to civil authorities under Article 14, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. 814). If the person to be delivered is a civilian, the person may be invited to report to the designated space for delivery. If the civilian refuses, the civilian authorities may be escorted to a place where the civilian is located in order that delivery may be effected. A civilian may be directed to leave a classified area. All should be done with minimum interference to good order and discipline.
#### 1503.905 Procedures for investigating complaints.

The Assistant Administrator for the Office of Administration and Resources Management is designated as the recipient of the written report of findings by the Inspector General. The Assistant Administrator shall ensure that the report of findings is disseminated in accordance with FAR 3.905(c).
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

June 1, 2006

Before

Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

No. 05-1616

STACEY MILLER,

Petitioner-Appellant

,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Western District

of Wisconsin.

No. 04 C 527

Barbara B. Crabb, Chief Judge

.

O R D E R

Judge William J. Bauer and Judge Richard A. Posner summarily AFFIRM and adopt as their own the attached opinion and order of the district court dated

December 29, 2004, and the orders dated March 8, 2005. Judge Kenneth F. Ripple’s

dissent is also attached. UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53No. 05-1616 Page 25

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge , dissenting. In my view, summary affirmance on the basis

of a memorandu m order issued by the district court should be reserved for the most extraordinary of situations. This principle is especially true when the decision of this court is not the product of the usual processes of decision-making, but of a preliminary screening. Before we truncate the usual appellate procedures, at a minimum, the appeal ought to be facially frivolous, or the writing of the district court should be so extensive that it fairly can be said to be responsive to all the arguments made by the appellant in this court. In any event, our basis of decision should be clear to the Supreme Court of the United States when it reviews our decision if a petition for

certiorari is filed.

In the case before us, the appeal cannot be considered facially frivolous. Indeed, both parties have submitted extensive and thoughtful briefs. Nor can the discussion of the issue on appeal by the district court be said to be totally responsive to the presentation of the appellant in this court. Finally, our order in this case, adopting the order of the

district court, does not fulfill our obligation to provide the Supreme Court with an adequate explanation of our decision.

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the order issued by the court today. I would set this case for oral argument in due course.
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT:

ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM

FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT:

SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL UNITS

December 2014

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Building Technologies Program

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards

Washington, DC 20585
This Document was prepared for the Department of Energy

by staff members of

Navigant Consulting, Inc. 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,

and

Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
#### CALDWELL et al., Respondents, v. LABAREE et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 23, 1903.)

Action by Howard Caldwell and others against J. Walter Labaree and others.

T. J. McManus and W. G. Woods, for appellants. S. Cox, for respondents.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. See 82 N. Y Supp. 865.
#### 1552.235-80 Access to confidential business information.

As prescribed in 1535.007-70(g), insert the following clause.

# Access to Confidential Business Information (OCT 2000)

It is not anticipated that it will be necessary for the contractor to have access to confidential business information (CBI) during the performance of tasks required under this contract. However, the following applies to any and all tasks under which the contractor will or may have access to CBI:

The contractor shall not have access to CBI submitted to EPA under any authority until the contractor obtains from the Project Officer a certification that the EPA has followed all necessary procedures under 40 CFR part 2, subpart B (and any other applicable procedures), including providing, where necessary, prior notice to the submitters of disclosure to the contractor.

(End of clause)

[65 FR 58928, Oct. 3, 2000]
### §14. Contracts not affected

This title shall not apply to contracts made prior to January 1, 1926.

(July 30, 1947, ch. 392, 61 Stat. 674.)

#### Derivation

Act Feb. 12, 1925, ch. 213, §15, 43 Stat. 886.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Act Feb. 12, 1925, ch. 213, §14, 43 Stat. 886, former provisions of section 14 of this title relating to "short title" is not now covered.
David Bergeron Office of Postsecondary Education

Zakiya Smith Office of the Under Secretary

Sally Wanner Office General Counsel

Bob Collins Apollo Group

Charles Lenth State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO)

Jim Simpson Florida Community College of Jacksonville

Pamela Swanson Adams County School District 50

Randall Swanson Swanson Group

Michael Goodwin Student of University of Phoenix

Sharon Thomas-Parrott DeVry Education Network

Louis Torres Metropolitan State College - Denver

Stephen Jordon Metropolitan State College - Denver

Andrew Parmentier Height Analytics

Andrea Davis Student of University of Phoenix

Natalie Williams Westwood College

Jennifer Cook Consulate General of Canada in Denver

Presenters

U.S. Department of Education Panel

Department of Education - Public Hearing

Denver, CO - June 15, 2009

Office of Postsecondary Education, June 18, 2009
#### 1407.301 Policy.

404 DM, Procurement Planning, addresses the requirements of OMB Circular A-76.
#### Jaffe Trading Corporation, Respondent, v. Overseas Distributors Exchange, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order entered on April 14, 1960, denying defendants’ motion for a rehearing of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with *$20*costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Stevens and Bastow, JJ.
**Exhibit 10.3**

 

 

July 29,2004

 

Mypodiamond,Inc.

FayetteBusiness Park

1101 Mt.View Drive

Smithfield,PA 15478

 

ToSUBLANDLORD:

 

Pursuantto Section 5 of the Sublease dated December 16, 2000 between Mypodiamond, Inc. and Dynamic MaterialsCorporation (“DMC”), DMC hereby provides written notice of its intent toexercise the extension option for a first additional term of five (5) yearsthat will extend the term of the Sublease from December 16, 2005 until 11:59 p.m., eastern standard time, on December15, 2010.

 

 
| Sincerely,                                 |
|--------------------------------------------|
|                                       |
|                                            |
|                                       |
| Richard A. Santa                           |
| Vice President and CFO                     |
|                                       |
|                                       |
| cc: Richard P. Eckman, Pepper Hamilton LLP |

 

----
13.305-4 Procedures. ( a ) Each purchase using imprest funds or third party drafts shall be based upon an authorized purchase requisition, contracting officer verification statement, or other agency approved method of ensuring that adequate funds are available for the purchase.
( b ) Normally, purchases should be placed orally and without soliciting competition if prices are considered reasonable.
( c ) Since there is, for all practical purposes, simultaneous placement of the order and delivery of the items, clauses are not required for purchases using imprest funds or third party drafts.
( d ) Forms prescribed at 13.307(e) may be used if a written order is considered necessary (e.g., if required by the supplier for discount, tax exemption, or other reasons). If a purchase order is used, endorse it “Payment to be made from Imprest Fund” (or “Payment to be made from Third Party Draft,” as appropriate).
( e ) The individual authorized to make purchases using imprest funds or third party drafts shall— ( 1 ) Furnish to the imprest fund or third party draft cashier a copy of the document required under paragraph (a) of this subsection annotated to reflect— ( i ) That an imprest fund or third party draft purchase has been made;
( ii ) The unit prices and extensions; and
( iii ) The supplier's name and address; and
( 2 ) Require the supplier to include with delivery of the supplies an invoice, packing slip, or other sales instrument giving— ( i ) The supplier's name and address;
( ii ) List and quantity of items supplied;
( iii ) Unit prices and extensions; and
( iv ) Cash discount, if any.
**RESCINDED**

# Protecting Students from Harassment and Hate Crime

## A Guide for Schools

### January 1999

----

For the user's convenience this publication is also available in portable document format [678K]. To read pdf files you will need Adobe's Acrobat Reader; if you do not have Acrobat, you can download a free copy from Adobe.  Table of Contents**Title page**
**Letter from Secretary Riley**
**Letter from the National Association of Attorneys General**
**Acknowledgments**
**Introduction**
**Part I: The Fundamentals**A Comprehensive Approach to Eliminating Harassment and Hate Crime
**Part II: Step-by-Step Guidance**

Developing the District's Written Anti-Harassment Policy
Identifying and Responding to Incidents of Harassment
Formal Complaint/Grievance Procedures
Create a school climate that supports racial, cultural, and other forms of diversity
Addressing Hate Crimes and Conflicts in School and in the Community
**Notes on Parts I and II**
(NOTE: The Appendices and Index are in portable document format and will require Adobe's Acrobat Reader.) 
**Appendices**- Appendix A: Sample School Policies   Appendix B: Protocols and Checklists 
Appendix C: Other Reference Materials 
Appendix D: Sources of Technical Assistance 
Appendix E: Books, Publications, and Videos 
**Index**
-###-    Return to Publications page
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Hugh Basil Tilkins, Appellant, v. Walter H. Wilkins, as Warden of Attica Prison, Respondent.

— Order reversed on the law, without costs, writ of habeas corpus sustained and defendant remanded to the Sheriff of Cayuga County for resentenee. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted in Cayuga County Court on June 23, 1952 of manslaughter, first degree, upon his plea of guilty and was sentenced to an indeterminate term of not less than 18 years nor more than , 20 years. Some two years later on April 9, 1954 defendant was returned to that court. The 1952 sentence was vacated and defendant was sentenced to a tefm of not less than 10 nor more than 20 years. Upon the hearing in this proceeding it was conceded that there was no compliance with section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the time of the resentenee in 1954. In denying relief the Wyoming County Court relied on *People ex rel. Wilkerson*v. *McMann*(11AD 2d 569, affd. 9 N Y 2d 916). That decision is distinguishable. There petitioner sought to vacate a prior conviction (for failure to comply with § 480) which had been used as a basis for treating petitioner as ¿ multiple offender. (See, also, *People ex rel. Egitto*v. *Jackson,*7 A D 2d 808, lv. to app. den. 5 N Y 2d 711.) *People ex rel. Miller*v. *Martin*(1 N Y 2d 406) is here controlling. Therein it was held that compliance with section 480 is “a jurisdictional prerequisite to sentence”. *(People ex rel. Williams*v. *Murphy,*6 N Y 2d 234, 236; see, also, *People*v. *Blasczyk,*2 A D 2d 947.) Decisions such as *People ex rel. Di Bari*v. *Fay*(18 A D 2d 999) relied on by the People are distinguishable. Here there was no plea followed in a few days by sentence. Nearly two years passed after sentence was first imposed. Then the original sentence was vacated and the new and different sentence was imposed. Under these circumstances, it was necessary to comply with section 480. (Cf. *People*v. *Schoonover,*15 A D 2d 862.) (Appeal from order of Wyoming County Court dismissing a writ of habeas corpus and remanding relator to custody of Warden of Attica Prison.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Noonan, JJ.