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

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Peter J. Hoyle, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of GA Computer Sciences Inc. (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 the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company, for
      the fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2006, and to which this certification
      is attached as Exhibit 32 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                        

| | By:    | /s/
      Peter J. Hoyle         
| | ------ | ---------------------------------
| |        |                                  
| | Name:  | PETER J. HOYLE                   
| |        |                                  
| | Title: | President, Secretary, Treasurer, 
| |        | Chief Executive Officer and Chief
| |        | Financial Officer                
| |        |                                  
| | Date:  | June 13, 2006                    

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-18-00261-CR

Jose Whitfield

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 30th District Court

of Wichita County (55,986-A)

August 9, 2018

Per Curiam 

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
#### § 27.36 Classification determinations based on official standards.

All cotton shall be classified on the basis of the official cotton standards of the United States in effect at the time of such classification.

[77 FR 5380, Feb. 3, 2012]
August 8, 2016

Mr. Paul Pritchett

Unmanned System Services, LLC

Representative for Ironclad Construction and Holding Company, LLC

3707 Delachaise Street

New Orleans, LA 70125

Re: FAA–2016–4765

Dear Mr. Pritchett:

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and 

have determined that we will continue to process your petition. 

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov, we 

are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, 

Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 107 (www.faa.gov/uas) will satisfy your request. We have determined that 

your request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your 

petition for exemption. 

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will 

publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments, if we have 

not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst
exv10w18



 





EXHIBIT 10.18




USF CORPORATION

DIRECTORS COMPENSATION

2004



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Annual Retainer:

	 	 	Cash
	 	 	$15,000/year
	 
	 	 

	 	 	•
	 	 	$7,500 payable
beginning of
1st
Quarter
	 
	 	 

	 	 	•
	 	 	$7,500 payable
beginning of
3rd
Quarter
	 
	 	 

	 	 	Stock
	 	 	$20,000/year
	 
	 	 

	 	 	•
	 	 	$10,000 payable
beginning of
1st
Quarter
	 
	 	 

	 	 	•
	 	 	$10,000 payable
beginning of
3rd
Quarter
	 
	 	Board Meeting Fees:

	 	 	 
	 	 	$1,000	 	 	 
	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Committee Fees:

	 	 	•
	 	 	$500 (If held with
Board Meeting)
	 
	 	 

	 	 	 
	 	 	$1,000 (If held
separate from Board
Meeting)
	 
	 	Chairperson Fees:

	 	 	Audit
	 	 	$4,000	 	 	 
	 	 

	 	 	Compensation
	 	 	$2,500	 	 	 
	 	 

	 	 	Nominating and
Corporate Governance
	 	 	$2,000	 	 	 
	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Telephonic Board or

Committee Fees:

	 	 	 
	 	 	$750	 	 	 
	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Annual Option Grant:

	 	 	 
	 	 	5,000 Shares (payable
in December)
	 
	 





     Directors are eligible to defer cash and stock compensation to USF’s Deferred Compensation Program.
§ 25.400 Reporting. ( a ) *Periodic reports.* Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities and Champion Communities shall submit to USDA periodic reports which identify the community, local government and State actions which have been taken in accordance with the strategic plan. In addition to these reports, such other information relating to designated Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities and Champion communities as USDA may request from time to time shall be submitted promptly. On the basis of this information and of on-site reviews, USDA will prepare and issue periodic reports on the effectiveness of the Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities Program.
( b ) *Annual report.* All rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities shall submit an annual report to USDA for each calendar year which includes an executive summary and benchmark progress report as follows: ( 1 ) *Executive summary.* The executive summary shall identify the progress and setbacks experienced in efforts to achieve benchmark goals. Activities other than those expressly included in the strategic plan should also be noted in order to provide an understanding of where the community stands with respect to implementation of the strategic plan. Furthermore, the executive summary should address the following: ( i ) Identify the most significant accomplishments to date.
( ii ) Describe the level of community participation and overall support for the EZ/EC initiative.
( iii ) List and describe new partnerships or alliances formed.
( iv ) Identify problems or obstacles not otherwise anticipated in the strategic plan.
( v ) Describe solutions developed or efforts to address the problems and obstacles.
( vi ) Identify practices or concepts which were found especially effective in implementing the strategic plan.
( 2 ) *Benchmark progress report.* For each benchmark goal the community will provide a current measure of the baseline condition which is the subject of targeted improvement and whether the current measure represents an improvement from the baseline condition as initially stated in the strategic plan. For each benchmark activity the community will provide a status report in form and substance acceptable to USDA.
( c ) *Timely State data.* Where not prevented by State law, nominating State governments must provide the timely release of data requested by USDA for the purposes of monitoring and assisting the success of Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1955

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 1955.22 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 regulation to provide guidance to Rural Development officials. State supplements will be submitted to the National Office for post approval in accordance with RD Instruction 2006-B (available in any Rural Development office).
EXHIBIT 21

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Name                                                Jurisdiction of Incorporation         Percentage Ownership
----                                                -----------------------------         --------------------
<S>                                                 <C>                                   <C>
Billion Luck Company Ltd.                           British Virgin Islands                100%

Hainan Zhongwei Agricultural Resources              People's Republic of China            61% (5% held by the
   Co. Ltd.                                                                               Registrant and 56% held
                                                                                          by Billion Luck)

First Goods and Materials Supply and                People's Republic of China            100% (held by HARC)
   Sales Corporation

Second Goods and Materials Supply and               People's Republic of China            100% (held by HARC)
   Sales Corporation

Hainan Zhongwei Trading Company Ltd.                People's Republic of China            100% (95% held by
                                                                                          HARC and 5% held by
                                                                                          Billion Luck)

Zhuhai Zhongwei Development Co. Ltd.                People's Republic of China            100% (held by HARC)
</TABLE>
Case 3:95-cr-03039-RV-MD Document 351 Filed 08/09/05 Page 1 of 1
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6377

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. BRUCE GREGORY HARRISON, III , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. ( 1:10

- cr - 00411

- TDS

- 1 )

Submitted : November 18, 2021 Decided: December 13, 2021

Before KING and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Bruce Gregory Harrison, III , Appellant Pro Se. Gregory Victor Davis , UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Un published opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bruce Gregory Harrison, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by
the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. The Government argues that Harrison’s appeal is untimely and, therefore, must be dismissed. In criminal cases, the defendant must file his notice of appeal within 14 days after
th e entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A) (i) ; see United States v. Goodwyn , 596 F.3d 233, 235 n.* (4th Cir. 2010) ( “[Section] 3582 motions . . . are criminal in

nature

. ”). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to 30 days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4) ; see United States v. Oliver , 878 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 2017)

. The district court entered the order denying Harrison’s motion for compassion ate release on February 22, 2021. Harrison filed his notice of appeal on March 9, 2021 , one day after the expiration of the appeal period

. 1 Because Harrison failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period and the Government promptly invoked the time

- bar , we dismiss his appeal as untimely. 2 See 4th Cir. R. 27(f)(2).

1 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the postmark is the earliest date Harrison could have delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) (A)(ii) ; Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

2 We pre viously remanded this case to the district court for a determination of whether Harrison had shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the appeal period. The district court determined that Harrison failed to establish excusable3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process

. DISMISSED

negl ect or good cause for the late filing of his notice of appeal, and we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in so finding. See United States v. Breit , 754 F.2d 526, 528

- 29 (4th Cir. 1985) (stating standard).
97-1967,

#### Chambers v. St. Mary’s School.

Geauga App. No. 96-G-2013. Reported at 82 Ohio St.3d 563, 697 N.E.2d 198. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Douglas, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

     CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 Quarterly Report of Cardiac Science Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael
K. Matysik, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 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 result of operations of the Company.

                                             /s/ MICHAEL K. MATYSIK
                                             ---------------------------------
                                             Michael K. Matysik
                                             Chief Financial Officer

    Date: November 9, 2006
2006-0502.

#### State v. Moore.

Cuyahoga App. No. 85828, 2006-Ohio-277. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal and cross-appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County. Upon consideration of appellant/erossappellee’s application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal is granted. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that the cross-appeal remains pending.
#### The State ex rel. McFadden et al., Appellees, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellants.

[Cite as *State ex rel. McFadden v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 375.]

(No. 97-1446

Submitted September 16, 1998

Decided October 14, 1998.)

*Weiner, Suit & Cowry*and *Paul W. Newendorp,*for appellees.

*376
      *Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Dennis L. Hufstader,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellant Industrial Commission of Ohio.

*David R. Cook,*for appellant Stoneridge, Inc.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *State ex rel. Russell v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 516, 696 N.E.2d 1069.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsLead Removal From Synthetic Leachate Matrices by a Novel Ion-Exchange MaterialThis report discusses the application of a novel polyacrylate-based ion-exchange material (IEM) for the removal of lead (Pb) ions from water. Preliminary testing includes the establishment of the operating pH range, capacity information, and the effect of calcium and anions in the matrix. Batch testing with powder indicates slightly different optimal operational conditions from those used for column testing. The ion exchanger is excellent for removing lead from aqueous solutions.Document ID20020070561Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsStreet, Kenneth W., Jr.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Hovanitz, Edward S.*(Engelhard Corp. Elyria, OH United States)*Chi, Sulan*(Lilly (Eli) and Co. Clinton, IN United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 2002Subject CategoryChemistry And Materials (General)Report/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:211090E-12932-1NASA/TM-2002-211090Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: DW80936188-01-0Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20020070561.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
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1968 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1968

To direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a pilot program to award 
 grants and loan guarantees to hospitals to carry out projects for the 
 purpose of reducing energy costs and increasing resilience to improve 
                               security.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 14, 2013

  Mr. Engel introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a pilot program to award 
 grants and loan guarantees to hospitals to carry out projects for the 
 purpose of reducing energy costs and increasing resilience to improve 
                               security.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Hospital Energy Conservation Act''.

SEC. 2. ENERGY CONSERVATION GRANT AND LOAN GUARANTEE PILOT PROGRAM.

    (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Energy shall establish a pilot 
program to award grants and loan guarantees to hospitals to carry out 
energy conservation projects for the purpose of--
            (1) significantly improving the energy efficiency of such 
        hospitals; and
            (2) encouraging onsite power generation and energy storage, 
        capable of operating independent of the grid, and providing 
        sufficient onsite emergency backup power for essential hospital 
        functions.
    (b) Number of Hospitals.--The Secretary shall award grants and loan 
guarantees under the pilot program to no more than 6 hospitals during 
the period described in subsection (f).
    (c) Applications.--A hospital seeking a grant or loan guarantee 
under the pilot program shall submit an application to the Secretary at 
such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information as the 
Secretary may require.
    (d) Considerations.--In selecting a hospital to award a grant or 
loan guarantee to under the pilot program, the Secretary shall give 
special consideration to applications from such hospitals that can 
demonstrate that they are able to commence an energy conservation 
project more promptly.
    (e) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``hospital'' and 
``energy conservation project'' have the meanings given such terms in 
section 391 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6371).
    (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated for carrying out this section such sums as may be 
necessary for fiscal years 2014 and 2015, to be derived from funds 
otherwise authorized to be appropriated for related purposes.
                                 <all>
```
service by helping them

understand and comply

with applicable tax laws

and to protect the public

interest by applying 

the tax law with integrity 

and fairness to all.
ees in the United States.) They also buy goods and services of nearly $3 trillion and have an economic impact of over $3.7 trillion.

GE customers also include 564 federally recognized Indian

tribes that account for over 2,500 entities of government subdivisions and business activities.Tax issues relating to tribal governments and activities are complex and frequentlyrequire coordination with other federal agencies at national
ees in the United States.) They also buy goods and services of nearly $3 trillion and have an economic impact of over $3.7 trillion.

GE customers also include 564 federally recognized Indian

tribes that account for over 2,500 entities of government subdivisions and business activities.Tax issues relating to tribal governments and activities are complex and frequentlyrequire coordination with other federal agencies at national
ees in the United States.) They also buy goods and services of nearly $3 trillion and have an economic impact of over $3.7 trillion.

GE customers also include 564 federally recognized Indian

tribes that account for over 2,500 entities of government subdivisions and business activities.Tax issues relating to tribal governments and activities are complex and frequentlyrequire coordination with other federal agencies at national
service by helping them

understand and comply

with applicable tax laws

and to protect the public

interest by applying 

the tax law with integrity 

and fairness to all.
service by helping them

understand and comply

with applicable tax laws

and to protect the public

interest by applying 

the tax law with integrity 

and fairness to all.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Jacob Goblet, David King Pate and Lester Harris, Also Known as Curtis Lester Harris, Appellants.

Two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered July 13, 1965, one as to appellant Corley and one as to appellant Pate, and a third judgment of said court rendered September 23, 1965 as to appellant Harris, reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered as to each appellant. We are constrained to reverse and order a new trial because (a) there were violations of section 393-b of the ■ Code of Criminal Procedure in the prosecutor’s opening and in the testimony of the People’s witnesses *(People*v. *Trowbridge,*305 N. Y. 471; *People*v. *Lord,*20 A D 2d 579); (b) there were a number of improprieties in the charge to the jury *(People*v. *Roberts,*26 A D 2d 655; *People*v. *Palmieri,*12 A D 2d 522); and (c) the prosecutor in summation improperly commented upon the failure of defendants to testify *547in their own behalf *(People*v. *Gould,*25 A D 2d 160, 162). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.