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

                            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 Quarterly Report of Beaconsfield III, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Andrew Gertler, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 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.

                                                /s/ Andrew Gertler
                                                ------------------
                                                Andrew Gertler
                                                Principal Executive Officer and
                                                Principal Financial Officer
                                                March 22, 2006
###### Editorial Note on Part 1942

#### Editorial Notes:

Nomenclature changes to part 1942 appear at 80 FR 9878, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1942.101 General.

This subpart provides the policies and procedures for making and processing insured Community Facilities (CF) loans for facilities that will primarily provide fire or rescue services and other small essential community facility projects and applies to fire and rescue and other Community Facilities loans for projects costing $300,000 and under. Any processing or servicing activity conducted pursuant to this subpart involving authorized assistance to Rural Development employees, members of their families, known close relatives, or business or close personal associates, is subject to the provisions of subpart D of part 1900 of this chapter. Applicants for this assistance are required to identify any known relationship or association with a Rural Development employee. Community Facilities loans for other types of facilities, and those costing in excess of $300,000, are defined in subpart A of this part.

[68 FR 65830, Nov. 24, 2003]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:94cr03146/RV

AMADOR BRAND-MIGUEL

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Senior Judge Roger Vinson on October 20, 2006

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION to Dismiss Indictment without perjudice 

Filed by United States on 10/20/2006 Doc.# 15

RESPONSES:

 on Doc.# 

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

 Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

 s/Jerry Marbut

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Jerry Marbut

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 23rd day of

 October , 2006, that:

(a) The relief requested is GRANTED.

(b) The indictment is dismissed, without prejudice.

 /s/ Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:94-cr-03146-RV Document 16 Filed 10/23/06 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 1955
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1955 appear at 80 FR 9895, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1955.11 Conveyance of property to Rural Development by trustee in bankruptcy. ( a ) *Authority.* With the advice of OGC (and prior approval of the National Office for MFH, Community Programs, and insured B&I loans), the State Director within his/her authority is authorized to accept a conveyance of property to the Government by the Trustee in Bankruptcy, provided: ( 1 ) The Bankruptcy Court has approved the conveyance;
( 2 ) The conveyance will permit a substantial recovery on the Rural Development debt; and
( 3 ) Rural Development will acquire title free of all liens and encumbrances except Rural Development iens.
( b ) *Fees and deed.* ( 1 ) Rural Development may pay any necessary and proper fees approved by the bankruptcy court in connection with the conveyance. Before paying a fee to a trustee for a Trustee's Deed in excess of $300 for any loan type(s) other than Farmer Programs or $1,000 for Farmer Program loans, prior approval of the Administrator must be obtained. The State Director will process the necessary documents as outlined in § 1955.5(d) of this subpart for payment of fees as recoverable costs.
( 2 ) Conveyance may be by Trustee's Deed instead of a warranty deed. If upon advice of OGC it is determined a deed from any other person or entity (including the borrower) is necessary to obtain clear title, a deed from such person or entity will be obtained.
( c ) *Acceptance.* The conveyance will be accepted for an amount of credit to the borrower's Rural Development account(s) as set forth in § 1955.18(e)(4) of this subpart.
( d ) *Reporting.* Acquisition of property under this section will be reported in accordance with § 1955.18(a) of this subpart.
[50 FR 23904, June 7, 1985, as amended at 53 FR 27827, July 25, 1988]
See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 47. 4 ( di st i ngui shi ng o pi ni ons a nd m em ora nd um opi ni ons)

, 52. 8( d) ( “ W hen 1

de ny i ng rel i ef, t he co urt m ay ha nd do w n a n o pi ni on bu t i s no t requ i red t o d o s o.” ) 

### NUM BER 13-09- 0007 9-CV



## COURT OF A PP EA LS

T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS

CORPUS CHRI ST I

- E DI NBURG

IN RE: M A RIA

KA ZERA NI

On Petit ion fo r Writ of M an da mus

and M otion for Tempor ar y Reli ef and Stay

of Proceedi ngs



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON

B ef o re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G ar za a n d V el a

M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam 1

Rel ator , M ar ia Kaz er ani , fil ed a peti ti on f or w ri t of m andamus in w hic h s he r eq uest s

that thi s C our

t di re ct re spond ent, the Hon or abl e Ri car do Rod ri g uez

, pr esi din g j udg e of the

92nd D is tr ic t C our

t of H ida lg o C ounty , Tex as, to v acat e the tr ial co urt’ s o rd er deny ing

re lat or ’s r eq uest for j ur y tr ial

. Rel ator

al so filed a mot ion fo r te m por ar y r eli ef and st ay

of

proce edin gs.

This C our

t, hav ing ex amined and fully co nsi der ed th e pet it ion for w ri t of mandamus

and t he moti on for tempor ar y r eli ef and st ay

of pr oceed ing s, is of the o pin ion that r ela tor

has not s how n her sel f entit led to the r eli ef soug ht an d the peti ti on and moti on shoul d be2

deni ed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8( a)

. Acc or din g ly , the petit ion for w ri t of mandamus and

mo tion f or tem pora ry

relief and stay of

procee dings are DENIED.

PER C UR IAM

Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and

filed thi s t he 13t h day

of Febr uar

y , 200 9.
§ 1728.20 Establishment of standards and specifications. ( a ) *National and other standards.* RUS will utilize standards of national standardizing groups, such as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), American Wood Preservers' Association (AWPA), the various national engineering societies and the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC), to the greatest extent practical. When there are no national standards or when RUS determines that the existing national standards are not adequate for rural electric systems, RUS will prepare standards for material and equipment to be used on systems of electric borrowers. RUS standards and specifications will be codified or listed in § 1728.97, Incorporation by Reference of Electric Standards and Specifications. RUS will also prepare specifications for materials and equipment when it determines that such specifications will result in reduced costs, improved materials and equipment, or in the more effective use of engineering services.
( b ) *Deviations from Standards.* No member of the RUS staff will be permitted to authorize deviations from the standard specifications, or to establish or change the technical standards, or to authorize the use of items that have not received acceptance by the Technical Standards Committees, except as provided for under § 1728.70, or by authorization and/or delegation of authority by the Administrator of RUS.
( c ) *Category of Items.* Items appearing in the List of Materials are listed by categories of generic items which are used in RUS construction standards incorporated by reference in § 1728.97. RUS will establish and define these categories and will establish all criteria for acceptability within these categories.
[50 FR 47710, Nov. 20, 1985. Redesignated at 55 FR 39395, Sept. 27, 1990, as amended at 55 FR 53487, Dec. 31, 1990]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JASON WAYNE MCDIVITT,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20-cv-3773-MCR/MJF

KILOLO KAJAKAZI,

Defendants.

/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation dated April 20, 2023. (ECF No. 33). The parties have been 

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an 

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 

636(b)(1). There have been no timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation and the record, I have 

determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Petitioner’s unopposed “Amended Motion for Attorney Fees Under 42 

U.S.C. § 406(B),” (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED.

Case 3:20-cv-03773-MCR-MJF Document 35 Filed 06/08/23 Page 1 of 2
3. Petitioner’s “Motion for Attorney Fees” (ECF No. 30) is DENIED as 

moot.

4. The Defendant will promptly disburse to Petitioner $16,187.50.

DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of June 2023.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-03773-MCR-MJF Document 35 Filed 06/08/23 Page 2 of 2
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:

Baker, 7:20cv39

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS ORDER NO. 15

This Order addresses Plaintiff’s objections and counter-designations to 

Defendants’ affirmative deposition designations and Defendants’ objections to 

Plaintiff’s counter-designations thereto for the following witness depositions:

1. Fallon, Eric (2020-09-04)

SO ORDERED, on this 17th day of June, 2021.

M. Casey Rodgers M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 176 Filed 06/17/21 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.1****SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Directed Electronics, Inc. (the“Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James E. Minarik, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, to my best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                  /s/ James E. Minarik   James E. Minarik  Date: August 9, 2007 Chief Executive Officer
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

LUZ ANABELI ESCOBAR ENRIQUEZ,

a.k.a. Luz Anabeli Escobar Enrique,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-73287

Agency No. A077-981-537

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 19, 2012** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Luz Anabeli Escobar Enriquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction

FILED

DEC 21 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-73287

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations,

Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the

petition for review.

The BIA properly determined that the IJ did not violate Escobar Enriquez’s

due process rights by failing to advise her that she had a right to apply for asylum,

where Escobar Enriquez never expressed a fear that she would be harmed if

returned to Guatemala, the record does not otherwise suggest a basis for any such

fear, and Escobar Enriquez had recently voluntarily returned to Guatemala for two

weeks. See Valencia v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 1261, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 2008) (there is

no requirement that an alien be advised of the availability of asylum where there is

no apparent eligibility for it); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.

2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 10.3.6


Annex B


FIRST AMENDMENT TO 

INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. 

EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN


The
Investment Technology Group, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plan”)
is amended as set forth below:


1.      Section 6(b) of
the Plan is amended to read in its entirety as follows, effective for Offering
Periods (as defined in the Plan) beginning on or after August 1, 2003:


(b)   Purchase Price.   Effective for
all Offering Periods beginning on or after August 1, 2003, the purchase
price at which each share of Stock will be purchased under a Purchase Right
will equal 85% of the lesser of (i) Fair Market Value of a share of Stock
on the first trading day in the Offering Period, and (ii) Fair Market
Value of a share of Stock on the last trading day in the Offering Period.”


Adopted by the Committee:   June 30,
2003
#### PARKER, Respondent, v. RHOADES et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

May 2, 1906.)

Action by C. Arthur Parker, in his own right and as survivor, against Lyman Rhoades and others.

PER CURIAM.

Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs, with usual leave to defendant to withdraw demurrer, and answer on payment of costs of demurrer and of this appeal.

PARKER, P. J., not voting.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2505

In re: NATURAL BORN CITIZEN PARTY NATIONAL COMMITTEE; HAROLD 

WILLIAM VAN ALLEN, Co-Chairperson,

Petitioners.

On Petition for Extraordinary Writ.

(1:13-cv-00278-LMB-TCB)

Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: February 29, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harold William Van Allen, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Howard William Van Allen petitions for an extraordinary 

writ, seeking an order directing a variety of actions related to 

the 2016 general election.* We conclude that Van Allen is not 

entitled to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, we deny Van 

Allen’s motion for certification to the Supreme Court and his 

petition for an extraordinary writ. 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.

PETITION DENIED

 * Van Allen, a pro se litigant, may not represent the 

interests of the Natural Born Citizen Party National Committee 

and its members, as he attempts to do. See Oxendine v. 

Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975). Accordingly, we 

consider Van Allen to be the sole petitioner.
Schedule of Director Fees



 Exhibit 10.57 
  
 SCHEDULE OF DIRECTOR FEES 
  
 Annual Retainers 
  

	 	•	 	Non-Employee Directors: $45,000 

  

	 	•	 	Audit Committee Members: $10,000 

  

	 	•	 	Nominating & Governance Committee Members: $5,000 

  

	 	•	 	Compensation Committee Members: $5,000 

  
 Fees for Meeting Attendance 
  

	 	•	 	Board Meetings: $2,000 per meeting 

  

	 	•	 	Committee Meetings: $2,000 per meeting 

  
 Equity Compensation for Non-Employee Directors 
  

	 	•	 	Annual grant of 2,500 shares of restricted stock 

  

	 	•	 	Annual grant of 5,000 stock options 

  

	 	•	 	Initial grant of 5,000 shares of restricted stock
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.42

                              SALES INCENTIVE PLAN
                                      2005
                          VICE PRESIDENT, PRIMARY CARE

The 2005 sales bonus will be based on the recorded revenues of the Quinton
products for the year-ending December 31, 2005. The 2005 sales target has been
established by the Company's CEO. 90% of the sales revenue target must be
achieved to be eligible for a bonus.

As the following table indicates, at 90% of the sales target you will be
eligible for a bonus of 10% of your base salary. At between 91% and 100% of the
sales target the bonus percentage will increase from 10% by an additional 2% for
each additional 1% of achievement. If greater than 100% of the sales target is
achieved, the bonus percentage will increase from 30% by 1% for each 1% by which
the sales target is exceeded.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
    2005        % to
             2005 Sales
Base Salary    Target              Bonus
-----------                        -----
<S>          <C>              <C>
    TBD          90%          10% of Base Salary
                 91%          12% of Base Salary
                 92%          14% of Base Salary
                 93%          16% of Base Salary
                 94%          18% of Base Salary
                 95%          20% of Base Salary
                 96%          22% of Base Salary
                 97%          24% of Base Salary
                 98%          26% of Base Salary
                 99%          28% of Base Salary
                100%          30% of Base Salary
                101+%       +1% for each 1% over 100%
</TABLE>

The sales bonus, if any, will be paid no later than 30-days following the
conclusion of the audit of the financial statements for the year ending December
31, 2005 and their filing with the SEC. The audited financial statements will be
used to assure the reasonableness of the revenue amount used in computing the
bonus. If the audit and filing with the SEC is not completed by March 31, 2005,
the incentive, if any, will be paid during the following month in conjunction
with the normal payroll practices.

Separation of employment, by resignation or termination, prior to March 31, 2005
will result in the forfeiture of the bonus payment.

Please sign as acceptance and return one copy to Lynda Melugin, Director, Human
Resources, and retain the other copy for your personal files.

/s/ John R. Hinson                                  /s/ Darryl Lustig
-------------------------                           -----------------

John Hinson                                         Darryl Lustig
President and CEO                                   Vice President, Primary Care

Quinton Confidential
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00241-CV

Keri Lynn Smith, Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 340TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. C-08-0251-CPS, HONORABLE JAY K. WEATHERBY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant filed her notice of appeal on April 28, 2010, and the clerk’s record was

filed on May 27. On May 25, we were informed that Rosemary Rose had been appointed to

represent appellant on appeal. On June 28, we sent notice that the reporter’s record was overdue,

and on July 7, the court reporter informed us that she had not been contacted to prepare the record,

nor had payment arrangements been made. On July 19, we sent Rose notice that the record was

overdue, requiring that appellant to make arrangements to pay for the record or otherwise respond

to our inquiry by July 29. We also informed Rose that if we did not receive a response by that date,

we would consider the appeal without the reporter’s record and that the brief would be due August

9. On August 31, after the record was not filed and appellant did not respond to our notice, we sent

Rose notice that her brief was overdue, requiring a response by September 10, and cautioning that

failure to respond would result in our referring the matter to the trial court for a hearing pursuant to
2

rule 38.8(b) of the rules of appellate procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b) (providing that if

counsel for criminal appellant fails to file brief, appellate court should order trial court to conduct

hearing on whether appellant wishes to prosecute appeal, is indigent, or has abandoned appeal); In re

T.V., 8 S.W.3d 448, 449-50 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, order) (holding that to adequately protect

indigent parent’s rights in termination case, court should abate appeal to allow trial court to hold

hearing to determine issues raised in Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)). To date, Rose has not responded

to our inquiries.

We therefore abate the cause and remand it to the trial court, which is instructed to

hold a hearing to determine why no brief has been filed, whether appellant still wishes to appeal, and

whether appellant is indigent. See T.V., 8 S.W.3d at 449-50. If appellant has not abandoned her

appeal, the trial court should remove Rose as appellate counsel and appoint a new attorney to

represent appellant’s interests. The trial court is instructed to arrange for a complete record of the

hearing, along with findings of fact and conclusions of law, to be forwarded to this Court within

45 days of the date of this opinion.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Puryear and Pemberton

Abated

Filed: October 26, 2010
#### § 1220.120 [Reserved]