alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                                                                      Exhibit 32


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


In connection with the annual Report of Radva Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to
19 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his 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.



Date:             March 22, 2004

                                           /s/ Luther I. Dickens
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Luther I. Dickens
                                           Chief Executive Officer

Date:             March 22, 2004

                                           /s/ William F. Fry
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           William F. Fry
                                           Vice President-
                                           Chief Financial Officer



                                       40
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ANDRE HAKKAK, DARIUS MOZAFFARIAN, BARBARA MCKEE, DAVID HACKETT and HALLE BENETT,

Defendants Below, Appellants,

and

WHITE OAK HEALTHCARE FINANCE, LLC, WHITE OAK
HEALTHCARE FINANCE DIRECT, LLC, WHITE OAK HEALTHCARE MOB, LLC, WHITE OAK H-ALTERNATIVE, LLC, WHITE OAK HEALTHCARE
REAL ESTATE SALELEASEBACK, LLC, and WHITE OAK REAL ESTATE DEBT, LP,

Nominal Defendants Below, Appellants,

v.

ISAAC SOLEIMANI and INE SOLEIMANI LP,

Plaintiffs Below, Appellees. § § § § § § § No. 209, 2024 § § Court Below—Court of Chancery § of the State of Delaware § § C.A. No. 2023-0948 § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §

Submitted: September 18, 2024 Decided: September 19, 20242 Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, LEGROW and
GRIFFITHS

, Justices, constituting Court en Banc

.

ORDER

This 19 th day of September 2024, after careful consideration of the parties’

briefs and the record below, and following oral argument, we find it evident that the

judgment of the Court of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and for the

reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion dated April 12, 2024.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of

Chancery is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
Chief Justice
###### Editorial Note on Part 1955

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 1955.150 State supplements.

State Supplements will be prepared with the assistance of OGC as necessary to comply with State laws or only as specifically authorized in this Instruction to provide guidance to Rural Development officials. State Supplements applicable to MFH, B&I, and CP must have prior approval of the National Office. Request for approval for those affecting MFH must include complete justification, citations of State law, and an opinion from OGC.
#### Carol A. Ingarra, Respondent, v Joseph P. Ingarra, Defendant, and Duralab Equipment Corp. et al., Appellants.

In a matrimonial action, nonparty corporate witnesses appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered August 17, 1979, as directs production and disclosure at the offices of plaintiffs attorney, of all corporate stockholders’ records, all corporate financial statements and all corporate tax returns, for the years 1976, 1977 and 1978. Order modified by adding thereto after the words the motion is "granted to the extent set forth in the memorandum filed with this order” the following: "except that the direction that 'the corporations shall also produce all stockholders’ records, corporate financial statements for the years 1976, 1977, 1978 and the corporate returns for 1976, 1977, 1978’ is deleted.” As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from without costs or disbursements. In this matrimonial action, the defendant husband is an employee and minority (10%) shareholder of two corporations from which plaintiff now seeks disclosure, Discovery of the defendant having already been made pursuant to section 250 of the Domestic Relations Law, we see no need for an extensive examination into the finances of the corporate appellants except as is necessary to disclose the extent of payments actually made to the defendant husband (see *Raved v Raved,*71 AD2d 883; *Billet v Billet,*60 AD2d 816). Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

J une 25 , 2013 

# Order

Clerk June 25 , 2013

146 212 ( 47 )

______________________________

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee, SC: 146212

COA: 304875

v Saginaw CC: 10

- 034923

- FH

JAMES EARLY HARRIS, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

______________________________ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by defendant

- appellant to exten d the

time for filing his appeal brief to June 26, 2013, is GRANTED.
#### In the Matter of Henry Yelyn, Petitioner, v. New York State Bingo Control Commission, Respondent.

Reynolds, J.

Proceeding, brought pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to review a determination of the New York State Bingo Control Commission dismissing petitioner from his position as a Bingo Control Investigator, after a hearing held pursuant to section 75 of the Civil Service Law. Petitioner urges that the board’s determination of his guilt of *“*the crime of forgery within the intent and meaning of section 170 of the Penal Law” by indorsing a check payable to a fellow employee and appropriating its value to his own use is not supported by substantial evidence and that in any event the punishment of dismissal from his position as a Bingo Control Investigator was, upon the record, unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious. Petitioner admitted at the hearing that on January 23, 1968 he received in an envelope addressed to him an expense check payable to a fellow investigator, that a few days later he received from the fellow investigator an expense check payable to his order and that on February 19, 1968 he indorsed the check made out to the fellow employee with the fellow employee’s name, then signed his own name beneath and negotiated the check in partial payment for a personal bill. Despite this admission petitioner asserts that his acts constituted a mistake and would not have happened except for the idiosyncrasies of his personal bookkeeping. In view of the fact that he received his own expense check as well as the expense check of the fellow employee and that he concededly signed the- fellow employee’s name to the check before signing his own name, the board did not have to accept his explanation of mistake and inadvertanee and could properly find the charge sustained. With respect to the issue of punishment, considering the responsibilities inherent in petitioner’s position, we cannot say that the punishment here imposed is so disproportionate to the offense as to warrant the substituting of our judgment for that of the administrative agency *(Matter of Walker*v. *Murphy,*15 N Y 2d 650; *Matter of Payton*v. *New York City Tr. Auth.,*8 N Y 2d 737; *Matter of Russell*v. *Stewart,*30 A D 2d 749; *Matter of Scardaccoine*v. *Allen,*28 A D 2d 751). Determination confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Cooke and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

Case No. 3:19md2885

LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

Lloyd Baker, 7:20cv039

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

ORDER

On June 18, 2021, the Court entered an oral ruling from the bench in 

connection with the document attached as Exhibit A. Accordingly, the document is 

hereby made a part of the record in this case.

SO ORDERED, on this 21st day of June, 2021.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 180 Filed 06/21/21 Page 1 of 3
Exhibit A

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 180 Filed 06/21/21 Page 2 of 3
35

Mr. McKinley Mr. McKinley

Q. Are you aware of anybody in the world 

that has ever done an EPA labeling test 

on the Combat Arms Version 2 other 

than the company that sold it? 

A. So, the -- there was an EPA labeling 

test that was done by Paul Michael and 

then later Kevin Michael's laboratory. 

They have an independent laboratory 

very near Penn State. 

***

Q. We’ll come back to that. The NRR is 23

DIRECT CROSS

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 180 Filed 06/21/21 Page 3 of 3
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PASCUAL AOUILINO GAYOSO

BERNAL,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-73406

Agency No. A079-538-013

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

San Francisco, California

Before: CANBY, THOMAS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Pascual Aoulino Gayoso-Bernal, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (“BIA”) order denying his

FILED

JUN 04 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8

U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to

reopen to apply for asylum, withholding of removal or relief under the Convention

Against Torture as untimely because he did not file the motion within 90 days of

the BIA's final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), he failed to

demonstrate material changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the

regulatory exception to the time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), and he did

not establish prima facie eligibility for relief, see Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d

988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring movant to establish prima facie eligibility

for relief); see also Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010)

(holding that Mexican aliens returning home from the United States did not qualify

as a cognizable social group for purposes of asylum or withholding of removal). 

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's June 7, 2005, order dismissing

petitioner’s direct appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his

application for cancellation of removal because this petition for review is not

timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
69926 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 16, 2010 / Notices 

[FR Doc. 2010–28768 Filed 11–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 10–52] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation 

Agency, Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following is a copy of a letter to the 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Transmittals 10–52 with attached 

transmittal, policy justification, and 

Sensitivity of Technology. 

Dated: November 9, 2010. 

Morgan F. Park, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICESEN16NO10.044</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 16, 2010 / Notices 69927 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICESEN16NO10.035</GPH>
69928 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 16, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICESEN16NO10.036</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 16, 2010 / Notices 69929 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICESEN16NO10.038</GPH>
69930 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 16, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICESEN16NO10.039</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 16, 2010 / Notices 69931 

[FR Doc. 2010–28770 Filed 11–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 10–46] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation 

Agency, Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following is a copy of a letter to the 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Transmittals 10–46 with attached 

transmittal, policy justification, and 

Sensitivity of Technology. 

Dated: November 9, 2010. 

Morgan F. Park, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICESEN16NO10.040</GPH>
#### § 201.13 Lot number or other identification.

The lot number or other identification shall be shown on the label and shall be the same as that used in the records pertaining to the same lot of seed.

[5 FR 30, Jan. 4, 1940, as amended at 59 FR 64491, Dec. 14, 1994]
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1822 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1822

 To extend the authorization period for certain uses of funds from the 
                  San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 2013

  Ms. Chu (for herself, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, and Mrs. 
 Napolitano) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the authorization period for certain uses of funds from the 
                  San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SAN GABRIEL BASIN RESTORATION.

    (a) Extension.--Section 110(a)(3)(A)(ii) of division B of the 
Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001 (as enacted into law by section 
1(a)(4) of Public Law 106-554) is amended by striking ``10'' and 
inserting ``15''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to any project constructed under Section 110 of such Act before, 
on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 201.26 Kind, variety, and hybrid.

The label shall bear the name of each kind and variety present as determined in accordance with § 201.34. The name shall not have affixed thereto words or terms that create a misleading impression as to the history or characteristics of kind or variety. If two or more kinds or varieties are present, the percentage of each shall be shown. If any one kind or variety named on the label is “hybrid” seed, it shall be so designated on the label. If two or more kinds or varieties are named on the label, each that is hybrid shall be shown as “hybrid” on the label. Any kind or variety that is less than 95 percent but more than 75 percent hybrid seed as a result of incompletely controlled pollination in a cross shall be labeled to show (a) the percentage that is hybrid seed or (b) a statement such as “Contains from 75 percent to 95 percent hybrid seed.” No one kind or variety of seed shall be labeled as hybrid if it contains less than 75 percent hybrid seed.

[33 FR 10841, July 31, 1968, as amended at 59 FR 64491, Dec. 14, 1994]
#### § 1777.2 [Reserved]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsDetermination of atmospheric moisture structure and infrared cooling rates from high resolution MAMS radiance dataThis program has applied Multispectral Atmospheric Mapping Sensor (MAMS) high resolution data to the problem of monitoring atmospheric quantities of moisture and radiative flux at small spatial scales. MAMS, with 100-m horizontal resolution in its four infrared channels, was developed to study small scale atmospheric moisture and surface thermal variability, especially as related to the development of clouds, precipitation, and severe storms. High-resolution Interferometer Sounder (HIS) data has been used to develop a high spectral resolution retrieval algorithm for producing vertical profiles of atmospheric temperature and moisture. The results of this program are summarized and a list of publications resulting from this contract is presented. Selected publications are attached as an appendix.Document ID19920024851Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeOther - Collected WorksAuthorsMenzel, W. Paul*(Wisconsin Univ. Madison, WI, United States)*Moeller, Christopher C.*(Wisconsin Univ. Madison, WI, United States)*Smith, William L.*(Wisconsin Univ. Madison, WI, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1991Subject CategoryGeophysicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:184375NASA-CR-184375Accession Number92N34095Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS8-36169Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19920024851.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsIDRelationTitleN92-34096 through N92-34098Workvisibility_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
§ 1786.204 Limitations. ( a ) No more than three refinancing notes will be executed for any borrower per calendar year.
( b ) The borrower may not select a term for the refinanced advance that ends after the maturity date set for that advance.
#### § 201.6 Germination.

The complete record shall include the records of all laboratory tests for germination and hard seed for each lot of seed offered for transportation in whole or in part. The record shall show the kind of seed, lot number, date of test, percentage of germination and hard seeds, and such other information as may be necessary to show the method used.

[5 FR 30, Jan. 4, 1940]
§ 1700.105 Determining whether land meets the statutory definition of “trust land.” The Administrator will use one or more of the following resources in determining whether a particular community is located in Trust land: ( a ) Official maps of Federal Indian Reservations based on information compiled by the U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and made available to the public;
( b ) Title Status Reports issued by the U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs showing that title to such land is held in trust or is subject to restrictions imposed by the United States;
( c ) Trust Asset and Accounting Management System data, maintained by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs;
( d ) Official maps of the Department of Hawaiian Homelands of the State of Hawaii identifying land that has been given the status of Hawaiian home lands under the provisions of section 204 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920;
( e ) Official records of the U.S. Department of the Interior, the State of Alaska, or such other documentation of ownership as the Administrator may determine to be satisfactory, showing that title is owned by a Regional Corporation or a Village Corporation as such terms are defined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 *et seq*);
( f ) Evidence that the land is located on Guam, American Samoa or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and is eligible for use in the Veteran's Administration direct loan program for veterans purchasing or constructing homes on communally-owned land; and
( g ) Any other evidence satisfactory to the Administrator to establish that the land is “trust land” within the meaning of 38 U.S.C. 3765(1).
Editorial Note on Part 1940
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1940 appear at 80 FR 9876, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1940.551 Purpose and general policy. ( a ) The purpose of this subpart is to set forth the methodology and formulas by which the Administrator for the Rural Business-Cooperative Service or the Administrator for the Rural Housing Service, as applicable, allocates program funds to the States. (The term *State* means any of the States of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any territory or possession of the United States, or the Western Pacific Areas.) This subpart is inapplicable to Farm Service Agency, Farm Loan Programs.
( b ) The formulas in this subpart are used to allocate program loan and grant funds to State Offices so that the overall mission of the Agency can be carried out. Considerations used when developing the formulas include enabling legislation, congressional direction, and administration policies. Allocation formulas ensure that program resources are available on an equal basis to all eligible individuals and organizations.
( c ) The actual amounts of funds, as computed by the methodology and formulas contained herein, allocated to a State for a funding period are distributed to each State Office by an exhibit to this subpart. The exhibit is available for review in any Rural Development State Office. The exhibit also contains clarifications of allocation policies and provides further guidance to the State Directors on any suballocation within the State. Rural Development will publish a Notice of Availability of Rural Housing funds in the Federal Register each year.
[49 FR 3727, Jan. 30, 1984, as amended at 53 FR 26229, July 12, 1988; 55 FR 29560, July 20, 1990; 56 FR 66960, Dec. 27, 1991; 72 FR 64122, Nov. 15, 2007]