alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
24.202 Prohibitions. ( a ) A proposal in the possession or control of the Government, submitted in response to a competitive solicitation, shall not be made available to any person under the Freedom of Information Act. This prohibition does not apply to a proposal, or any part of a proposal, that is set forth or incorporated by reference in a contract between the Government and the contractor that submitted the proposal. (See 10 U.S.C. 3309 and 41 U.S.C. 4702.)
( b ) No agency shall disclose any information obtained pursuant to 15.403-3(b) that is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. (See 10 U.S.C. 3705(c)(3) and 41 U.S.C. 3505(b)(3).)
( c ) A dispute resolution communication that is between a neutral person and a party to alternative dispute resolution proceedings, and that may not be disclosed under 5 U.S.C. 574, is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3)).
[62 FR 257, Jan. 2, 1997, as amended at 62 FR 51270, Sept. 30, 1997; 63 FR 58594, Oct. 30, 1998; 68 FR 56689, Oct. 1, 2003; 79 FR 24208, Apr. 29, 2014; 87 FR 73898, Dec. 1, 2022]
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
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 accompanying Form 10-Q (the Report) of Jo-Ann Stores,
Inc. (the Company) for the period ending November 1, 2003, I, Alan Rosskamm,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 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.

Dated: December 15, 2003



| | /s/ Alan Rosskamm

Alan Rosskamm,
President and Chief Executive Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except underthe limited circumstancesset forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41087

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ZACKARY ULYESSES JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(1:97-CR-46-1)

July 23, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Zackary Uylesses Johnson appeals the sentence imposed after his guilty-plea

conviction for possessing a controlled substance (cocaine base or crack cocaine) with

intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a).

Johnson contendsthat the district court committed clear errorin its determination,

for sentencing purposes, of the amount of cocainebase involved. It is his position that

the court improperly included unseized amounts of cocaine base that, according to the

PSR, an undercover officer purportedly “felt” and concludedamounted to four ounces
 

1United States v. Torres, 114 F.3d 520 (5th Cir.), cert denied, 118 S.Ct. 316 (1997).

 

2United States v. Gaytan, 74 F.3d 545 (5th Cir. 1996).

 

3See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment (n.12).

 

4Torres.

2

of the contraband.

Johnson errs. There is no such statement in the PSR, nor is there any statement

fromwhich thisreasonablymight be inferred. Rather, the PSR informs that Johnson told

the undercover officer that he had “four ounces” of crack to sell.

In sentencing, the district court isto approximate the quantity of drugs notseized.

That determination is a factualfindingwhichwe reviewfor clear error.1 This factual call

need be supported only by a preponderance of the evidence.2 The district court took the

four ounces of which Johnson spoke and reduced them, using a formula reflecting the

actual amount compared to Johnson’s earlier exaggeration of transactions he made of

“one ounce” and “1⁄4 ounce.”3 This reduction manifestly was in Johnson’s favor. In this

approximation we perceive neither clear error nor error.4

Johnson’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
#### 225.401-71 Products or services in support of operations in Afghanistan.

When acquiring products or services, other than small arms, in support of operations in Afghanistan, if using a procedure specified in 225.7703-1(a)(2) or (3), the procedures of subpart 25.4 are not applicable.

[78 FR 59857, Sept. 30, 2013]
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1001

Geological Interpretation of the Sea Floor Offshore of Edgartown, Massachusetts

Title | List of Figures | Conversion Factors | Abstract | Introduction | Setting | Methods | Bathymetry | Sidescan Sonar | Seismic Profiles | Sediments | Bottom Photography | Data Catalog | Summary | Acknowledgments | References Cited | Contacts

Figure 8. The RESON Seabat 8101 hull-mounted in the keel cut out       of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Launch 1005.   

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological SurveyURL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1001/html/fig8.htmlPage Contact Information: GS Pubs Web ContactPage Last Modified: Thursday, 22-Apr-2010 15:28:38 EDT
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 10.4


                                        March 15, 2000


PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL


Mr. James R. Fluharty
308 Camelot Lane
Libertyville, Illinois  60048

Dear Jim:

     Re: Severance Agreement

     This letter serves as an amendment of the Severance Agreement between IDEX
Corporation and you dated December 3, 1999 which you accepted on December 6,
1999.  Pursuant to this amendment, Item 9 of the enumerated Severance Benefits
is eliminated and replaced with the following:

     9)   All stock options previously granted to you will immediately vest and
          you will have until the earlier of (i) ten (10) years from date of
          grant of the option or (ii) thirty-six (36) months following the last
          day of employment to exercise the options you hold.

     All other terms of the Severance Agreement remain unchanged.  Please
acknowledge your acceptance of this amendment by signing and returning the
enclosed copy of this letter.

                                        Very truly yours,


                                        /s/ Frank J. Hansen

FJH:mtm
Enclosure


Agreed to and accepted by:


/s/ James R. Fluharty

Date:  March 31, 2000
#### Norma Springer et al., Respondents, v. John Carlson, Appellant. John Weibold, Respondent, v. John Carlson, Appellant.

In a consolidated action to recover damages for injuries to person and property, arising out of the collision of two automobiles, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered June 14, 1960, which grants plaintiffs’ oral motion to direct defendant and his wife, Carmela Carlson (not a party), to appear for examination before trial as to all pertinent and material matters concerning the operation and control of the vehicle which was operated by defendant. The examination was ordered following a conference between court .and counsel held after the case had appeared for trial on the Ready Calendar and more than 2% years after a note of issue had been filed by plaintiffs. This note of issue included a statement of readiness pursuant to the special rule of this court effective January 15, 1957, as amended (statement of readiness rule). In the filed readiness statement there are included these words “defendant is scheduled to be examined before trial.” Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied. In the absence of a formal application and a showing made pursuant to paragraph (c) of subdivision (9) of the special rule of this court relating to statements of readiness, the order under review was unwarranted. The record does not disclose such an application and showing. Nolan, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


                                                             Exhibit 10(ii)(aq)

                          AMENDMENTS TO MIRROR PLANS

     1. Section 7.02 (Separation from Service) is amended effective January
        1, 2000 to add the following paragraph:

        Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the present value of the
        Participant's vested benefits does not exceed $5,000, such benefits
        shall be distributed to the Participant in a single sum payment in
        January following the year in which occurs the later of (a) his
        Separation from Service or (b) the date of receipt by the Plan
        Administrator of the Participant's notice of employment termination.
        Such present value shall be determined as of the date of receipt by
        the Plan Administrator of the Participant's notice of employment
        termination; provided, however, that if the Participant had a
        Separation from Service before January 1, 2000, such present value
        shall be determined as of December31, 1999.  The payment date shall
        be determined by the Plan Administrator.

     2. Section 7.03 (Death) is amended effective January 1, 2000 to add the
        following paragraph after the first paragraph:

        Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the present value of the
        Participant's vested benefits does not exceed $5,000, such benefits
        shall be distributed to the Beneficiary of the Participant in a
        single sum payment in January following the Participant's date of
        death, or, if later, after satisfactory proof of death is received by
        the Plan Administrator.  The payment date shall be determined by the
        Plan Administrator.
Protecting Students

**Overview**  Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972  (Title IX) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in all education  programs and activities operated by recipients of federal funds, including  colleges, universities, and public school districts. Unless they are  specifically exempt, Title IX applies to all institutions that receive federal  financial assistance from the Department of Education, including state and  local educational agencies. Recipients subject to Title IX include  approximately 16,500 local school districts, 7,000 postsecondary institutions,  as well as charter schools, for-profit schools, libraries, and museums. Also  included are vocational rehabilitation agencies and education agencies of 50  states, the District of Columbia, and territories and possessions of the United  States. OCR enforces Title IX to ensure that students have equal access to  educational opportunity and can go to school without fear of sex  discrimination. 

 

----

 

              - Laws
              - Issues
              - Case Resolutions
              - Civil Rights Coordinator's Data
              - Frequently Asked Questions on Sex Discrimination
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 14, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10328 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus OSCAR ASCENCION-GUARDADO, also known as Chris Ascencion, also known as Chris Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:03-CR-83-ALL-K

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Oscar AscencionGuardado raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   4-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             588
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     2765
<ALLOWANCES>                                       136
<INVENTORY>                                      12030
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 22208
<PP&E>                                            8168
<DEPRECIATION>                                    6706
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   26212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            13396
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1045
<OTHER-SE>                                       10854
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     26212
<SALES>                                           8509
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  8509
<CGS>                                             5030
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     5030
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  6238
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  93
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2852)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         3
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2855)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2855)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.32)
        

</TABLE>
# 1 - Filing Status
219.808-1 Sole source. For sole source requirements processed under the PA, follow the procedures at PGI 219.808-1. ( a ) In lieu of the threshold at FAR 19.808-1(a), the SBA may not accept for negotiation a DoD sole-source 8(a) contract exceeding $100 million unless DoD has completed a justification in accordance with FAR 6.303 and 206.303-1(b).
[72 FR 20762, Apr. 26, 2007, as amended at 85 FR 34530, June 5, 2020]
#### Elizabeth G. Bervy, Appellant, v Max A. Bervy, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered February 16, 1978 in Columbia County, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint. On the motion to dismiss the complaint, affidavits were submitted by the plaintiff in support of the complaint, but there were no affidavits by the defendant and no answer was interposed and the issues were not framed. In that respect, the motion differs from one for summary judgment where detailed affidavits by both litigants are before the court. In view of the present circumstances and accepting the allegations of the complaint as true, as we must, the third cause of action therein, in its present posture, alleges a cause of action (see *Christian v Christian,*42 NY2d 63, 72). We would also note that the agreement by its precise terms will result in a violation of section 5-311 of the General Obligations Law by relieving the defendant of plaintiff’s support after five years unless she should sooner die or remarry. Nevertheless, the plaintiff may not avoid the binding effect of the contract prior to the time when the defendant no longer is obligated to provide for her support upon that ground *(Henderson v Henderson,*47 AD2d 801, app dsmd 37 NY2d 782; *Ripley v Ripley,*30 AD2d 782, affd no opn 24 NY2d 770). In so deciding, we do not reach the merits of the controversy. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by reinstating the third cause of action in the amended complaint; matter remitted to Special Term, and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Staley, Jr., Main and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
M. P. No. 74-177.

#### Keith Olsen *v.*James W. Mullen, *Warden.*

*Keith Olsen,*petitioner, pro se. *Richard J. Israel,*Attorney General, *R. Raymond Greco,*Special Asst. Attorney General, for respondent.

Pro se motion for admission to bail pending trial for murder denied.
Case: 1:12-cr-00405 Document #: 3 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:10
| (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Registrant. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated      this 1st      day of April, 2009 | By:    | /s/      Xiao Ping Zhang     |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|
|                                        |   | Xiao      Ping Zhang         |
|                                        |   | Chief      Executive Officer |
|                                        |   |                         |
|                                        | By:    | /s/      Zong Yun Zhou       |
|                                        |   | Zong      Yun Zhou           |
|                                        |   | Chief      Financial Officer |

----
Exhibit 31.2

                                CERTIFICATIONS

         I, Anthony J. Verkruyse, as the Chief Financial Officer of Niagara
Corporation, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2003 of Niagara Corporation;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

         4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and
have:

         a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

         b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's fourth
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

         5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors:

         a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

         b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: March 29,2004
                                          /s/ Anthony J. Verkruyse
                                          -------------------------
                                          Anthony J. Verkruyse
                                          Vice President, Treasurer & Chief
                                          Financial Officer
#### Sophie Hines, Appellant, v. Ruby Chinn, Respondent.

Motion granted, order dismissing appeal vacated, ease added on January 1961 Calendar. Respondent’s brief will not be accepted unless filed and served on or before December 15, 1960.
Exhibit
      23.1





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





The
      Board
      of Directors


PhotoMedex,
      Inc. and Subsidiaries:





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Form 10-K for the year ended
      December 31, 2007, the registration statements (Nos. 333-58450, 333-72580,
      333-91926, 333-106605, 333-120921 (and amendment 1), 333-125980, 333-132654
      and
      333-139031) on Form S-3, in the registration statements (Nos. 333-100609 and
      333-121864) on Form S-4, and in the registration statements (Nos. 333-30298,
      333-114181, 333-124034, 333-132656, 333-132655 and 333-146558) on Form S-8
      of
      PhotoMedex, Inc. of our report dated March 11, 2008, relating to the
      consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal controls
      over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.





/s/
                Amper, Politziner & Mattia, P. C.Edison,
                New JerseyMarch
                14, 2008