alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SS.1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of IR BioSciences Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael K. Wilhelm, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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.





IR BIOSCIENCES HOLDINGS, INC.Date: April 15, 2010
By:
/s/ Michael K. WilhelmMichael K. WilhelmPresident and Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, an other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Price *et al.*vs. *Meredith.*

Cuancerx. Case 81.

Error to the Warren Circuit; Brodnax, Judge.

*Usury.*

Vide case.

April *15.*

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the oeinion of the court.

Johnson, as assignee of Price, having obtained a judgment against Meredith, on a note for $700 in Commonwealth paper, Meredith and his replevin sureties iujoined the judgment for alleged usurious exactions, prior to the date of the note, which was a continuation of a series of notes of different amounts, which, during that and the preceeding year, had been given by Meredith to Price.

*261On the final hearing, the circuit court perpetuated the. i junction to the entire judg.neit; and the appedants now complain tint the circuit court in not dissolving the injunction for some part of the judgment.

The case was loosely prepared, and it is impossible to ascertain with satisfactory certainty, from the bills, answers, and proofs, what would be the precise state of case between the parties, if it could be adjusted, by any certain data, according to the principles of equity. Enough, however, is disclosed to prove tnat outrageous exactions of interest have been made by Price of Meredith, amounting, sometimes, to as much as five per cent, a month.

The answers of Price, (especially the first) are replete with evasions and misrepresentations. But the exact amounts and dates of all the various loans do not appear. And putting upon all the fads a construction the most unfavorable-to Price, this court cannot, without venturing upon the vaguest bind of guessing, conclude with the circuit court, that Meredith owes nothing.

After scrutinizing all the fads, and analysing every circumstance that can operate legitimately, or furnish any *rational*clue, we are of opinion that about $110 (in Commonwealth paper) at least, were due to Price, at the date of the note sued on, We aie not authorized to determine, judicially, that he was entitled to less or to nothing, and we are willing to say that, according to such an interpretation of the fads *as his own conduct will*justify, he was not entitled to more. As the facts are minute and voluminous, we will not unnecessarily swell this opinion by adverting to them.

The assignment to Johnson was evidently merely colorable.

The contract was for Commonwealth notes, and the execution was endorsed for such notes. '1‘here-fore the circuit court ought, in our opinion, to have dissolved the injunction for $110, and the legal interest thereon, for which the judgment was rendered.

*262
      *Jas.*and *Chs.*Morehead, for appellants; Ewing, for appellees.

Wherefore, the decree is reversed and the cause remanded, with instructions to render a decree conformable to this opinion.

The appellants must have their costs in this court,, but should pay costs in the circuit court.
Exhibit 10.1

Director Compensation

(Effective July 1, 2007)

Director compensation is reviewed by the Compensation, Nominating and Governance Committee (CNG Committee) of the Board of Directors, which
recommends director compensation to the Board for approval. In July 2007, after a competitive review of director compensation, the Board approved the following director compensation, effective July 1, 2007:



| |  |  | Each non-management director is paid an annual cash retainer of $50,000, except that the Chairman of the Board is paid $70,000.
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Committee chairs receive an additional annual cash retainer, $10,000 in the case of the Audit Committee, $5,000 in the case of the CNG Committee and $5,000 in the
case of the Corporate Risk Committee, to the extent such chair is a non-management director.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Directors are reimbursed for their reasonable travel, lodging, food and other expenses incurred in connection with their service on the Board and its committees.
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Directors have the option of participating in the Companys Deferred Compensation Plan.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EX-10.30:



 


Exhibit 10.30




DESCRIPTION OF AGREEMENT
WITH LOUIS C. CAMILLERI


     Mr. Camilleri is
entitled to receive a Supplemental Retirement Allowance in an amount
determined by using the formula under the Retirement Plan for
Salaried Employees and his total years of service from
September 4, 1978. This benefit is payable under the
Supplemental Management Employees’ Retirement Plan and is offset
by any benefits payable under the Company’s other qualified and
nonqualified U.S. Retirement Plans.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS ) 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY ) 

LITIGATION )

) 

) 

This Document Relates to All Cases ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 3:19-md-02885 

Judge M. Casey Rodgers 

Magistrate Judge Hope T. Cannon

____________________________________________ 

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL 

OF COUNSEL PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 11.1(H)(1)(B) 

AND REQUEST FOR REMOVAL FROM SERVICE LIST 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that attorney Sharon Turret, of the law firm 

Dechert LLP, is withdrawing as counsel for Defendant 3M Company in the abovereferenced multi-district litigation, and should be removed from the docket and 

electronic service list accordingly. As required by Local Rule 11.1(H)(1)(b), 

Defendant consents to this withdrawal, and the withdrawal will leave Defendant 

with counsel of record who will continue in the case. 

DATED: February 2, 2023 By: /s/ Kimberly Branscome

Kimberly Branscome 

DECHERT LLP 

1 

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3656 Filed 02/02/23 Page 1 of 3
633 West 5th Street 

Los Angeles, California 90071 

Telephone: (213) 808-5762 

Email: kimberly.branscome@dechert.com 

Attorney for Defendant 3M Company 

2 

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3656 Filed 02/02/23 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, hereby certify that on February 2, 2023, I caused a copy of the foregoing 

to be filed through the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will serve all counsel of 

record. 

DATED: February 2, 2023 /s/ Kimberly Branscome

Kimberly Branscome 

3 

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3656 Filed 02/02/23 Page 3 of 3
§ 1780.19 Public information. ( a ) *Public notice of intent to file an application with the Agency.* Within 60 days of filing an application with the Agency the applicant must publish a notice of intent to apply for a RUS loan or grant. The notice of intent must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the proposed area to be served.
( b ) *General public meeting.* Applicants should inform the general public regarding the development of any proposed project. Any applicant not required to obtain authorization by vote of its membership or by public referendum, to incur the obligations of the proposed loan or grant, must hold at least one public information meeting. The public meeting must be held not later than loan or grant approval. The meeting must give the citizenry an opportunity to become acquainted with the proposed project and to comment on such items as economic and environmental impacts, service area, alternatives to the project, or any other issue identified by Agency. To the extent possible, this meeting should cover items necessary to satisfy all public information meeting requirements for the proposed project. To minimize duplication of public notices and public involvement, the applicant shall, where possible, coordinate and integrate the public involvement activities of the environmental review process into this requirement. The applicant will be required, at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to publish a notice of the meeting in a newspaper of general circulation in the service area, to post a public notice at the applicant's principal office, and to notify the Agency. The applicant will provide the Agency a copy of the published notice and minutes of the public meeting. A public meeting is not normally required for subsequent loans or grants which are needed to complete the financing of a project.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1955

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1955 appear at 80 FR 9895, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1955.64 [Reserved]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsIndependent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Assessment of the rudder/speed brake subsystem FMEA/CILThe results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA effort first completed an analysis of the Rudder/Speed Brake (RSB) hardware, generating draft failure modes and potential critical items. To preserve independence, this analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA FMEA/CIL documentation. The IOA results were then compared to the NASA FMEA/CIL baseline along with the proposed Post 51-L CIL updates included. A resolution of each discrepancy from the comparison was provided through additional analysis as required. This report documents the results of that comparison for the Orbiter RSB hardware. The IOA product for the RSB analysis consisted of 38 failure mode worksheets that resulted in 27 potential critical items being identified. Comparison was made to the NASA baseline which consisted of 34 FMEAs and 18 CIL items. This comparison produced agreement on all CIL items. Based on the Pre 51-L baseline, all non-CIL FMEAs were also in agreement.Document ID19900001659Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsWilson, R. E.*(McDonnell-Douglas Astronautics Co. Houston, TX, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateFebruary 5, 1988Subject CategorySpace TransportationReport/Patent NumberREPT-1.0-WP-VA88003-08NASA-CR-185558NAS 1.26:185558Accession Number90N10975Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS9-17650Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900001659.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
### GilaRiver Indian Community Department ofEnvironmental Quality Air Program P.O. Box 97 

# . Sacaton, Az. 

# - 85247 Phone: (520) 562-2234 

### Fax: (520) 562-2245 

## FAX 

## TRANSMISSION

From: 

# s& /Iav Date: 

# 5-18-05 Re: 

## 5/25 &?wl.vL~~ 

# &T Pages (includingthis page): 

# a_ CC 

### COMMENTS:

### GILA RIVER 

### INDIAN COMMUNITY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AIR PROGRAM MEMO DATE: May 18,2005 TO: Mr. Glendon French FROM: Janet Travis, Environmental Project Assoc. 

# F u RE: Community Meeting The GRIC Department of Environmental Quality is requesting placement on the agenda for the District 7 Community meeting on 5/23/05. The air program will present informationon proposed ordinances that will regulate sources of air pollution within the Community. Please call me at 520-562-2234 ext. 286 if you have any questions.TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME : 85/18/2665 16:36 NAME : DEPT DEQ FAX : 5285622245 TEL : 5285622234 DATE, TIME FAX M./NAME WRATION PAGE (S) RESULT MODE



### Gila

### RiverIrzdian Communiv Deportment 

### ofEnvironmental Quality Air 

### Program P.O.Box 

### 97 

# . Sacaton,

### Az. 

# - 85247 

### Phone: (520) 562-2234 

### Fax; (520) 562-2245 

## FM 

## TYZANSMISSIOI\I+ To: 

# D-7.5wv;ce 

# w

Date= 

# s-\g-oq Re: 

# 3 

# bwdq 

# 9 Pages (includifig

### this page): 

# -& CC:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          Year ended December 31,
                                                            (amounts in thousands, except per share data)
                                                            ---------------------------------------------

                                                              1996             1995             1994
                                                              ----             ----             ----
 <S>                                                        <C>              <C>              <C>
 PRIMARY
 Average shares outstanding                                   28,016           23,963         25,261

 Net effect of dilutive stock options and warrants (1)            33              807            476    

 Assumed conversion of preferred stock                            --               74            624       

 Total                                                        28,049           24,844         26,631
                                                            ========         ========         ======
 Net Income                                                 $ 18,139         $ 12,389        $ 7,520
                                                            ========         ========         ======

 Earnings per common and common equivalent share              $ 0.65           $ 0.50        $  0.29
                                                            ========         ========         ======

 FULLY DILUTED

 Average shares outstanding                                   28,016           23,963         25,261
 Net effect of dilutive stock options and warrants (1)            33              807            476

 Assumed conversion of preferred stock                            --               74            624   

 Total                                                        28,049           24,844         26,361
                                                            ========         ========         ======

 Net income                                                $  18,139         $ 12,389        $ 7,520
                                                            ========          =======          =====
 Earnings per common and common equivalent share              $ 0.65         $   0.50        $  0.29
                                                            ========         ========         ======
</TABLE>


(1) The impact on the computation of per share earnings between using the
    average market price for the primary computation and the year-end market
    price (if higher than average market price) for the fully diluted
    computation is less than 3% of the applicable outstanding shares.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. SS.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the Annual  Report of IR  BioSciences  Holdings,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form  10-KSB/A for the year ended  December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Michael Wilhelm, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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/ Michael Wilhelm
                              -----------------------
                              Chief Executive Officer
                              July 20, 2005

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, an other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section  906,  has been  provided to Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
§ 15c.9 Enforcement. ( a ) If USDA finds that a recipient has committed a violation of the Age Act and determines that voluntary compliance cannot be obtained, the Department shall enforce the requirements of the Age Act and this regulation through the termination of a recipient's Federal financial assistance under the program or activity involved where the recipient has violated the Age Act or this regulation. The determination of the recipient's violation may be made only after a recipient has had an opportunity for a hearing on the record before an administrative law judge. ( 1 ) Any termination under this paragraph (a) shall be limited to the particular recipient and particular program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or portion thereof found to be in violation of the Age Act or this regulation.
( 2 ) No action under this paragraph (a) may be taken until: ( i ) OASCR, or designee, has advised the recipient of its failure to comply with the Age Act and this regulation, and has determined that voluntary compliance cannot be obtained; and
( ii ) Thirty days have elapsed after the head of the agency involved has sent a written report of the circumstances and grounds of the action to the committees of the Congress having legislative jurisdiction over the program or activity involved.
( 3 ) An agency may defer granting new Federal financial assistance to a recipient when termination proceedings under this paragraph (a) are initiated.
( b ) When an agency withholds funds from a recipient under this regulation, the Agency Head may disburse the withheld funds directly to any public or non-profit private organization or agency, or State or political subdivision of the State. These alternate recipients must demonstrate the ability to comply with this regulation and to achieve the goals of the Federal statute authorizing the Federal financial assistance.
( c ) USDA may seek to achieve compliance with the Age Act and this regulation by any other means authorized by law.
§ 247.19 Dual participation. ( a ) *What must State and local agencies do to prevent and detect dual participation?* The State agency must work with local agencies to prevent and detect dual participation. The State agency must work with local agencies to prevent and detect dual participation. In accordance with § 247.8(a)(1), the local agency must check the identification of all applicants when they are certified or recertified. In accordance with § 247.8(b), the local agency must ensure that the applicant or caretaker of the applicant signs an application form which includes a statement advising the applicant that he or she may not receive CSFP benefits at more than one CSFP site at the same time.
( b ) *What must the local agency do if a CSFP participant is found to be committing dual participation?* A participant found to be committing dual participation must be discontinued from participation at more than one CSFP site. In accordance with § 247.20(b), if the dual participation resulted from the participant or caretaker of the participant making false or misleading statements, or intentionally withholding information, the local agency must disqualify the participant from CSFP, unless the local agency determines that disqualification would result in a serious health risk. The local agency must also initiate a claim against the participant to recover the value of CSFP benefits improperly received, in accordance with § 247.30(c). Whenever an individual's participation in CSFP is discontinued, the local agency must notify the individual of the discontinuance, in accordance with § 247.17. The individual may appeal the discontinuance through the fair hearing process, in accordance with § 247.33(a).
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0584-0293) [70 FR 47063, Aug. 11, 2005, as amended at 79 FR 38751, July 9, 2014; 85 FR 68722, Oct. 30, 2020]