alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

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 Chase General Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, Barry M. Yantis, President and Chief Executive Officer of Chase General Corporation, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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/ Barry M. Yantis                  
|Barry M. Yantis                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|Treasurer and Chairman of the Board  

Dated: February 12, 2007



21
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Garcia, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 259]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), rendered September 4, 2003, convicting him of kidnapping in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), and criminal impersonation in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The circumstances of the defendant’s arrest in terms of the temporal and geographical proximity to the scene of the crime, his possession of various instrumentalities of the crime, and the forensic evidence, coupled with the identification by the victim’s father-in-law of the defendant as the man who came to the house to collect the ransom, firmly established *667his role in the crimes. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Further, the police lawfully stopped the vehicle *(see People v Robinson,*97 NY2d 341, 349-353 [2001]; *People v Gonzalez,*25 AD3d 620, 621 [2006]; *People v Romeo,*15 AD3d 420 [2005]). The police officer’s decision to open the trunk of the stopped vehicle to see if the missing kidnap victim was inside was justified under the emergency exception doctrine *(see People v Molnar,*98 NY2d 328, 332 [2002]; *People v Alster,*28 AD3d 490, 491 [2006]). The defendant’s contention that the police officer did not have probable cause to move an NYPD T-shirt, which was covering a handgun, once it had been determined that no one was inside the trunk, is unpreserved for appellate review. Accordingly, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress physical evidence, to the extent reviewed, was properly denied. In any event, the defendant, who was a passenger in the car, lacked standing to contest the search of the lawfully-stopped vehicle *(see People v Gonzalez, supra; People v Ballard,*16 AD3d 697, 698 [2005]; *People v Phillips,*260 AD2d 582 [1999]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
#### 1852.235-74 Additional Reports of Work—Research and Development.

As prescribed in 1835.070(e), insert a clause substantially the same as the following:

# Additional Reports of Work—Research and Development (FEB 2003)

In addition to the final report required under this contract, the Contractor shall submit the following report(s) to the Contracting Officer:

(a) *Monthly progress reports.* The Contractor shall submit separate monthly reports of all work accomplished during each month of contract performance. Reports shall be in narrative form, brief, and informal. They shall include a quantitative description of progress, an indication of any current problems that may impede performance, proposed corrective action, and a discussion of the work to be performed during the next monthly reporting period.

(b) *Quarterly progress reports.* The Contractor shall submit separate quarterly reports of all work accomplished during each three-month period of contract performance. In addition to factual data, these reports should include a separate analysis section interpreting the results obtained, recommending further action, and relating occurrences to the ultimate objectives of the contract. Sufficient diagrams, sketches, curves, photographs, and drawings should be included to convey the intended meaning.

(c) *Submission dates.* Monthly and quarterly reports shall be submitted by the 15th day of the month following the month or quarter being reported. If the contract is awarded beyond the middle of a month, the first monthly report shall cover the period from award until the end of the following month. No monthly report need be submitted for the third month of contract effort for which a quarterly report is required. No quarterly report need be submitted for the final three months of contract effort since that period will be covered in the final report. The final report shall be submitted within ____ days after the completion of the effort under the contract.

(End of clause)

[68 FR 5232, Feb. 3, 2003]
1

Subject: RE: Proposals from Marc Jerome

________________________________________

From: Chip Cameron [fxcameo@ ]

Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 7:41 PM

To: Kolotos, John; Rory O'sullivan; Angela Peoples; Eileen Connor; Whitney Barkley; Margaret Reiter; Tom Tarantino;

Kevin Jensen; Mohr, Rhonda (rmohr@ ); Warner, Jack; Sandra Kinney; Justice, Della (KYOAG); Libby DeBlasio;

Ted Daywalt; Tom Kriger; Helga Greenfield; rhiggs@ ; Richard Heath; Glen Gabert; Nassirian, Barmak; Barbara

Hoblitzell; Jenny Rickard; tdalton@ ; Brian Jones; Raymond Testa; JBerkowitz@ ; Belle

Wheelan Private; nharvison@

Cc: Marc Jerome; Mahaffie, Lynn; Wilson, Amy; charlie pou

Subject: Proposals from Marc Jerome

Negotiators:

Attached are proposals from Marc Jerome on a number of subjects.  As I informed you yesterday, Marc had a family

medical issue which prevented him from submitting these yesterday.  Here they are.  I have included his entire message

below to aid in understanding what he is proposing.

The Department is closed, so we'll need to wait and see how much time they will have to evaluate all the proposals that

you have submitted before the next meeting.  At some point they will inform us if the next session has to be re‐

scheduled.  However, there's nothing to prevent you from discussing any of these proposals on your own, if you think

that would help when we eventually get back together.  I am also off the clock but wanted to make sure that Marc's

proposals got to you.

Chip

"To the Department and My Fellow Negotiators:

Thank you for the opportunity to present a few comments and suggestions regarding the proposed gainful employment

rule. It has been a pleasure working with you on this challenging topic. I have enclosed proposals relating to three topics:

•       Opportunity to Improve Program Performance

•       The Debt to Earnings Calculations

•       Practical Alternatives to Reduce Student Debt

All of the proposals are meant to be constructive and help the Department meet its goals of assuring that gainful

employment programs prepare students appropriately and without too much debt.

After spending the last three years immersed in the details of two complex proposed GE  rules, I have concluded  trying

to fully understand their impact is a nearly impossible task —the more one reads the regulation, the more questions

that arise.

While debt‐to‐earnings information is relevant, I believe the ratio is too narrow a measure to determine which programs

prepare students for gainful employment. As a result, I am unsure that the rule achieves its intended purpose.  I do not
2

see how the rule can identify programs do not lead to gainful employment if it does not measure whether students

complete the program in the first place. In fact, the rule seems to reward programs where almost all students drop out.

As a result, I would like to see the rule incorporate graduation rates and default rates in some manner.

Thank you for working together on this."
### §7712a. Reduction in backlog of agricultural export petitions

#### (a) Reduction efforts

To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary of Agriculture shall endeavor to reduce the backlog in the number of applications for permits for the export of United States agricultural commodities. In achieving such reduction, the Secretary shall not dilute or diminish existing personnel resources that are currently managing sanitary and phytosanitary issues for—

(1) United States agricultural commodities for which exportation is sought; and

(2) interdiction and control of pests and diseases, including for the evaluation of pest and disease concerns of foreign agricultural commodities for which importation is sought.

#### (b) Report

The Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate an annual report specifying, for the year covered by the report—

(1) the total number of applications processed to completion;

(2) the number of backlog applications processed to completion;

(3) the percentage of backlog applications processed to completion; and

(4) the number of backlog applications remaining.

(Pub. L. 108–465, title II, §202, Dec. 21, 2004, 118 Stat. 3884.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004, and not as part of the Plant Protection Act which comprises this chapter.
#### Richard Weintraub, Respondent, v. Abraham S. Zabotinsky, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injury arising out of alleged dental malpractice, the defendant Zabotinsky appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered December 19, 1961 after trial upon a jury’s verdict, as is in plaintiff’s favor against said defendant. Judgment, insofar as appealed from, reversed on the law; new trial granted as between plaintiff and the defendant Zabotinsky, with costs to abide the event; and action severed as against the defendant Rubin; The court has considered the questions of fact presented and has determined that it would not grant a new trial upon those questions. In his charge the Trial Justice instructed the jury to compensate the plaintiff for his injury *“*in such amounts as you jurors feel you, yourselves, would like to be com*907pensated if the conditions happened to you the same as happened to this man.” Although defendant’s counsel duly excepted to this portion of the charge, the Trial Justice failed to add any appropriate change, explanation or clarification. In our opinion, the instruction as given was erroneous and constitutes reversible error (cf. *Stantial*v. *IJwion By. Co.,*52 Mise. 653; *Rhodes*V. *Union By. Co.,*52 Mise. 501; *Greer*v. *Union By. Co.,*53 Mise. 639, 640). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ.
#### 1827.304-4 Appeals.

FAR 27.304-4 shall apply unless otherwise provided in the NASA Patent Waiver Regulations, 14 CFR part 1245, subpart 1.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

Laws & Guidance
Risk Assessment and Subaward Management under the Uniform Guidance
Key Sections of Uniform Guidance Related to Subwards 

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Transforming Teaching
          - Family and Community Engagement
          - Early Learning

 

|  |
|--|
|  |
|  | No Related Topics Found |  |
|  |

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a GrantEligibility for Grants

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works Clearinghouse

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy ProgramSubscribe to E-Mail Updates

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Exhibit 4.1(a)

                      Series A Convertible Preferred Stock

         PA - XX                                                XXXXX

                              DECODE GENETICS, INC.
                      Series A Convertible Preferred Stock
              Incorporated Under the Laws of the State of Delaware
                           Par Value $0.001 Per Share

THIS CERTIFIES THAT ___________________________ is the record holder of
_________________________ (_______) shares of the Series A Convertible Preferred
Stock of deCODE genetics, Inc., transferable on the books of the Corporation by
the holder hereof, in person or by duly authorized attorney, only upon surrender
of this Certificate properly endorsed.

A STATEMENT OF the rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions granted to
or imposed upon the respective classes or series of shares of stock of the
Corporation and upon holders thereof as established by the Certificate of
Incorporation or by any Certificate of Designation of Preferences, and the
number of shares constituting each series and the designations thereof, may be
obtained by any stockholder upon request and without charge at the principal
office of the Corporation.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by
its duly authorized officers as of _________, 2000.



_______________________________________    ____________________________________
DIANE M. FRENIER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY      KARI STEFANSSON, PRESIDENT
<PAGE>   2



For Value Received, _____ hereby sell, assign and transfer
unto________________________________________
______________________________________Shares represented by the within
Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint
___________________________________ Attorney to transfer the said Shares on the
books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the
premises.

         Dated ____________________

                  In the presence of _________________________________
15.605 Content of unsolicited proposals. Unsolicited proposals should contain the following information to permit consideration in an objective and timely manner: ( a ) Basic information including— ( 1 ) Offeror's name and address and type of organization; e.g., profit, nonprofit, educational, small business;
( 2 ) Names and telephone numbers of technical and business personnel to be contacted for evaluation or negotiation purposes;
( 3 ) Identification of proprietary data to be used only for evaluation purposes;
( 4 ) Names of other Federal, State, or local agencies or parties receiving the proposal or funding the proposed effort;
( 5 ) Date of submission; and
( 6 ) Signature of a person authorized to represent and contractually obligate the offeror.
( b ) Technical information including— ( 1 ) Concise title and abstract (approximately 200 words) of the proposed effort;
( 2 ) A reasonably complete discussion stating the objectives of the effort or activity, the method of approach and extent of effort to be employed, the nature and extent of the anticipated results, and the manner in which the work will help to support accomplishment of the agency's mission;
( 3 ) Names and biographical information on the offeror's key personnel who would be involved, including alternates; and
( 4 ) Type of support needed from the agency; e.g., Government property or personnel resources.
( c ) Supporting information including— ( 1 ) Proposed price or total estimated cost for the effort in sufficient detail for meaningful evaluation;
( 2 ) Period of time for which the proposal is valid (a 6-month minimum is suggested);
( 3 ) Type of contract preferred;
( 4 ) Proposed duration of effort;
( 5 ) Brief description of the organization, previous experience, relevant past performance, and facilities to be used;
( 6 ) Other statements, if applicable, about organizational conflicts of interest, security clearances, and environmental impacts; and
( 7 ) The names and telephone numbers of agency technical or other agency points of contact already contacted regarding the proposal.
[62 FR 51230, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended at 72 FR 27384, May 15, 2007]
#### 1631.203-72 Home office expense.

A carrier's practices for allocating home office expenses to the segments of the carrier will be acceptable for purposes of FAR 31.203 if they are allocated on the basis of the beneficial or causal relationship between the home office activities and the segments to which the expenses are allocated. Expenses that cannot be allocated on the basis of a more specific beneficial or causal relationship should be allocated on a basis representative of the entire activity being managed. The compliance of such allocations with FAR 31.203 shall be determined on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each situation.

[70 FR 31391, June 1, 2005]
#### 1352.271-87 Changes—ship repair.

As prescribed in 48 CFR 1371.118, insert the following clause:

# Changes—Ship Repair (APR 2010)

(a) The Contracting Officer may, at any time, by written order, and without notice to the sureties, if any, make changes within the general scope of this contract, in any one or more of the following:

(1) Drawings, designs, or specifications, when the supplies to be furnished are to be specially manufactured for the Government in accordance with the drawings, designs, or specifications;

(2) Method of shipment or packing;

(3) Place of performance of the work;

(4) Time of commencement or completion of the work; and

(5) Other requirements within the general scope of the contract.

(b) If any such change causes an increase or decrease in the cost of, or the time required for, performance of any part of the work under this contract, whether changed or not changed by the order, the Contracting Officer shall make an equitable adjustment in the contract price, the delivery schedule, or both, and shall modify the contract accordingly.

(c) The contractor must submit any proposal for adjustment under this clause within 5 days from the date of receipt of the written order. At the Contracting Officer's discretion, the 5-day period may be shortened. However, if the Contracting Officer decides that the facts justify it, the Contracting Officer may receive and act upon a proposal submitted before final payment of the contract.

(d) If the contractor's proposal includes the cost of property rendered obsolete or excess by the change, the Contracting Officer shall have the right to prescribe the manner of the disposition of the property.

(e) Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be a dispute under the Disputes clause. However, nothing in this clause shall excuse the contractor from proceeding with the contract as changed.

(End of clause)

[75 FR 10570, Mar. 8, 2010; 75 FR 14496, Mar. 26, 2010]
1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2097

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Donald E. Tooley, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 3, 2007

Filed: July 9, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Donald E. Tooley (Tooley) appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed

following his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of ammunition, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). Finding Tooley was an armed career

criminal, the district court sentenced him to the statutory minimum of 15 years in

prison. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1); U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4. Tooley’s counsel has moved

to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
-2-

Counsel challenges one of the predicate offenses underlying Tooley’s armed-careercriminal status, arguing that stealing a motor vehicle should not automatically be

deemed a “violent felony.” See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) (defining “violent felony”

as a crime that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year and “otherwise

involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another”).

Tooley has filed a pro se “Motion to Suspend Brief and Briefing Schedule, Withdraw

Counsel and Appoint Appellate Counsel,” in which he argues counsel below was

ineffective, and seeks appointment of new appellate counsel. We reject these

arguments, and affirm the sentence.

Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Burling, 420 F.3d 745, 749 (8th Cir.

2005), we conclude that counsel’s challenge is unavailing. See United States v.

Barbour, 395 F.3d 826, 827-28 (8th Cir. 2005) (ruling under controlling precedent,

a Kansas vehicle theft is violent felony within meaning of § 924(e)). As for Tooley’s

pro se argument, we adhere to the general rule that Tooley must raise his claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, where the record

can be properly developed. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th

Cir. 2003).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw,

and we affirm. We also deny Tooley’s pending motion.

______________________________
1832.412 Contract clause. (NASA supplement paragraphs (e) and (f)) ( e ) The contracting officer shall use Alternates IV and V when advance payments are provided on Phase I contracts of the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) or Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs.
( f ) See 1832.412(e).
[63 FR 14040, Mar. 24, 1998]