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



EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350 AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:
November 2, 2006
    
    /s/ Thomas DeeryThomas Deery, Chief Executive OfficerDate:
November 2, 2006
    
    /s/ Brian CarterBrian Carter, Chief Financial Officer
 58
§ 1970.13 Consideration of alternatives. The purpose of considering alternatives to a proposed action is to explore and evaluate whether there may be reasonable alternatives to that action that may have fewer or less significant negative environmental impacts. When considering whether the alternatives are reasonable, the Agency will take into account factors such as economic and technical feasibility. The extent of the analysis on each alternative will depend on the nature and complexity of the proposal. Environmental review documents must discuss the consideration of alternatives as follows: ( a ) For proposals subject to subpart C of this part, the environmental effects of the “No Action” alternative must be evaluated. All EAs must evaluate other reasonable alternatives whenever the proposal involves potential adverse effects to environmental resources.
( b ) For proposals subject to subpart D of this part, the Agency will follow the requirements in 40 CFR part 1502.
§ 205.310 Agricultural products produced or processed by an exempt operation. ( a ) An agricultural product organically produced or processed by an exempt operation must not: ( 1 ) Display the USDA seal or any certifying agent's seal or other identifying mark which represents the exempt operation as a certified organic operation; or
( 2 ) Be represented as a certified organic product or certified organic ingredient to any buyer.
( b ) An agricultural product organically produced or processed by an exempt operation may be identified as an organic product or organic ingredient in a multi-ingredient product produced by the exempt operation. Such product or ingredient must not be identified or represented as “organic” in a product processed by others.
( c ) Such product is subject to requirements specified in paragraph (a) of § 205.300, and paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(7) of § 205.301.
[65 FR 80637, Dec. 21, 2000, as amended at 88 FR 3623, Jan. 19, 2023]
EXHIBIT 11

                 Statement re Computation of Per Share Earnings
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>



                                                                                      November 30,

                                                                                  1996                     1995
                                                                                  ----                     ----
<S>                                                                               <C>                       <C>    

Fully Diluted:
  Average Shares Outstanding Disregarding Dilutive                                                  
    Convertible Preferred Stock                                                 7,991,997                 7,966,186                 

  Assuming Conversion at beginning of Year of:
     $10 Convertible Preferred Stock                                            1,000,000                     ---
     10% Convertible Preferred Stock                                               57,600                    57,600          
      8% Convertible Preferred Stock                                              103,333                   103,333
     12% Convertible Preferred Stock                                               95,238                    95,238
                                                                               -----------                -----------
  Shares Outstanding                                                            9,248,168                 8,222,357
                                                                               ===========                ===========
Income (Loss) Available to Common Stockholders for Fully Diluted
  Calculations                                                               $ (3,881,428)              $(1,754,013)
                                                                             ==============             ==============
Per Share Amount:
   Net Loss                                                                  $       (.43)              $      (.22)
                                                                             ==============             =============
</TABLE>

This calculation is submitted in accordance with Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Release  No.  9083  although  it is contrary to para 48 of APB No. 15 because it
produced an antidilutive result.

                                                                                
                                       38

<PAGE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **1**
**- 1240** 

MARY NASOH ,
P etitioner ,

v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. , Attorney General , Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Sub mitted : November 4, 2011 Decided: November 30, 2011

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Petition d enied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Theodore N. Nkwenti, LAW OFFICE OF THEODORE NKWENTI, Silver Spring, Maryland , for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Francis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel, Susan K. Houser , Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent

.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Mary Nasoh , a native and citizen of Cameroon , petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion s to reopen and reconsider

.
Because Nasoh fail s to raise any arguments that mea ningfully
challenge the propriety of the Board’s denial of her motion s to
reopen and reconsider in the argument section of her brief, we
find that she has failed to preserve any issues for review. See
Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (“[T]he argument . . . mus t contain
. . . appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with
citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which
the appellant relies.”); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro , 178 F.3d
231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (“Failure to comply with the
specific dictates of [Rule 28] with respect to a particular
claim triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal.”).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons
stated by the Board. See In re: Nasoh (B.I.A. Feb. 17, 2011 ).
We dispense wit h oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsDurability Issues for the Protection of Materials from Atomic Oxygen Attack in Low Earth OrbitLow Earth orbital atomic oxygen is capable of eroding most polymeric materials typically used on spacecraft. Solar array blankets, thermal control polymers, and carbon fiber matrix composites are readily oxidized to become thinner and less capable of supporting the loads imposed upon them. Protective coatings have been developed that are durable to atomic oxygen to prevent oxidative erosion of the underlying polymers. However, the details of the surface roughness, coating defect density, and coating configuration can play a significant role as to whether or not the coating provides long duration atomic oxygen protection. Identical coatings on different surface roughness surfaces can have drastically different durability results. Examples and analysis of the causes of resultant differences in atomic oxygen protection are presented. Implications based on in-space experiences, ground laboratory testing, and computational modeling indicate that thin film vacuum-deposited aluminum protective coatings offer much less atomic oxygen protection than sputter-deposited silicon dioxide coatings.Document ID20020082955Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypePreprint (Draft being sent to journal)AuthorsBanks, Bruce*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Lenczewski, Mary*(Ohio Aerospace Inst. Brook Park, OH United States)*Demko, Rikako*(Cleveland State Univ. Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 2002Subject CategorySpacecraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:211830IAC-02-1.5.02E-13524NASA/TM-2002-211830Meeting InformationMeeting: 53rd International Astronautical Congress: The World Space Congress-2002Location: Houston, TXCountry: United StatesStart Date: October 10, 2002End Date: October 19, 2002Sponsors:International Academy of Astronautics,International Astronautical Federation,International Inst. of Space LawFunding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 755-A4-06Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20020082955.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
#### § 249.5 Selection of new State agencies.

In selecting new State agencies, FNS will use objective criteria to rank and approve State plans submitted in accordance with § 249.4. In making this ranking, FNS will consider the amount of funds necessary to operate the SFMNP successfully in the State compared with other States and with the total amount of funds available to the SFMNP, the number of participants estimated to be served, and the projected benefit level. Approval of a State Plan does not equate to an obligation on the part of FNS to fund the SFMNP within that State.
#### § 205.642 Fees and other charges for certification.

Fees charged by a certifying agent must be reasonable, and a certifying agent shall charge applicants for certification and certified production and handling operations only those fees and charges that it has filed with the Administrator. The certifying agent shall provide each applicant with an estimate of the total cost of certification and an estimate of the annual cost of updating the certification. The certifying agent may require applicants for certification to pay at the time of application a nonrefundable fee which shall be applied to the applicant's fees-for-service account. The certifying agent may set the nonrefundable portion of certification fees; however, the nonrefundable portion of certification fees must be explained in the fee schedule submitted to the Administrator. The fee schedule must explain what fee amounts are nonrefundable and at what stage during the certification process fees become nonrefundable. The certifying agent shall provide all persons inquiring about the application process with a copy of its fee schedule.
Editorial Note on Part 1942
Editorial Notes: Nomenclature changes to part 1942 appear at 80 FR 9878, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1942.16 State supplements and guides. State Directors will obtain National Office clearance for all State supplements and guides under RD Instruction 2006-B (available in any Rural Development office). ( a ) *State supplements.* State Directors may supplement this subpart to meet State and local laws and regulations and to provide for orderly application processing and efficient service to applicants. State supplements shall not contain any requirements pertaining to bids, contract awards, and materials more restrictive than those in § 1942.18 of this subpart.
( b ) *State guides.* State Directors may develop guides for use by applicants if the guides to this subpart are not adequate. State Directors may prepare guides for items needed for the application; items necessary for the docket; and items required prior to loan closing or start of construction.
MEMORANDUM
                                  CONFIDENTIAL

TO:               Robert D. Hardy
DATE:             July 16, 2003
FROM:             Harold C. Simmons
                  Steven L. Watson

RE:               NL Industries, Inc.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The terms of your separation from NL Industries,  Inc. and its subsidiaries will
be in accordance with the following:

1)   You will  continue  in the  position  of Vice  President,  Chief  Financial
     Officer and  Controller  for each of NL and KII until the respective NL and
     KII 2nd quarter Form 10-Q's and ancillary documents are filed with the SEC.
     Your  responsibilities  will  include  executing  required   certifications
     related to  historical  financial  statements  included  in SEC  filings or
     otherwise for periods during which you have held the  applicable  position.
     You will continue  providing services on a full time basis, as requested by
     our  designee(s),  and be paid salary at an annual rate of $400,000 through
     9/30/03.

2)   From  9/30/03 to  12/31/03  you will serve as a  consultant  to NL on an as
     needed basis consistent with your search for a new employment position. You
     will be paid semi-monthly at an annual rate of $400,000 through 12/31/03.

3)   Lump sum severance/bonus  payments of $200,000 each will be paid on 9/30/03
     and 12/31/03. These payments will extinguish all obligations due to you and
     you will not be entitled to any other severance or bonus payments under any
     agreements, plans or policies.

4)   Stock option and employee benefits, other than severance and bonus plans or
     policies,  will be governed by the terms of the applicable plans, with your
     effective  termination date deemed being (i) with respect to stock options,
     6/30/04,  and (ii) with respect to all other applicable  employee benefits,
     the earlier of 12/31/03 or the date upon which you secure  other  full-time
     employment.

5)   From 1/1/04 through 6/30/04 a consulting retainer will be paid at a rate of
     $15,000 per month, plus  reimbursement of your reasonable  expenses,  which
     will terminate upon your attainment of other full-time employment.  NL will
     be entitled to up to 50 hours of your  services per month in return for the
     retainer. Hours exceeding 50 hours per month will be paid at a rate of $200
     per hour.  Subsequent to the  termination of the consulting  retainer,  you
     agree to provide consulting services as may be reasonably requested,  which
     are  consistent  with your time  availability,  at a rate of $200 per hour,
     plus reimbursement of your reasonable expenses.

6)   It is understood  that your work  performance  during the periods set forth
     above will be consistent with your prior performance.

Acknowledged and Agreed:

By: /s/Robert D. Hardy                                        Date: 07/17/03
    ------------------                                              --------
#### § 1709.7 Applicant eligibility.

An outstanding judgment obtained against an applicant by the United States in a Federal Court (other than in the United States Tax Court), which has been recorded, shall cause the applicant to be ineligible to receive a grant or loan under this part until the judgment is paid in full or otherwise satisfied. RUS financial assistance under this part may not be used to satisfy the judgment.
§ 248.25 FMNP information. Any person who wishes information, assistance, records or other public material shall request such information from the State agency, or from the FNS Regional Office serving the appropriate State as listed below: ( a ) Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont: U.S. Department of Agriculture, FNS, Northeast Region, 10 Causeway Street, Room 501, Boston, Massachusetts 02222-1066.
( b ) Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Virginia, Virgin Islands, West Virginia: U.S. Department of Agriculture, FNS, Mid-Atlantic Region, Mercer Corporate Park, 300 Corporate Boulevard, Robbinsville, New Jersey, 08691-1598.
( c ) Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee: U.S. Department of Agriculture, FNS, Southeast Region, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Room 8T36, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
( d ) Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin: U.S. Department of Agriculture, FNS, Midwest Region, 77 West Jackson Boulevard—20th floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3507.
( e ) Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas: U.S. Department of Agriculture, FNS, Southwest Region, 1100 Commerce Street, room 5-C-30, Dallas, Texas 75242.
( f ) Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming: U.S. Department of Agriculture, FNS, Mountain Plains Region, 1244 Speer Boulevard, suite 903, Denver, Colorado 80204.
( g ) Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, Washington: U.S. Department of Agriculture, FNS, Western Region, 90 Seventh Street, Suite #10-100, San Francisco, California 94103.
[59 FR 11517, Mar. 11, 1994, as amended at 60 FR 49748, Sept. 27, 1995; 60 FR 57148, Nov. 14, 1995; 73 FR 65251, Nov. 3, 2008]
EXHIBIT 13.1



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 Annual Report of China Natural Resources, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Li Feilie, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ LI FEILIE          
| | Li Feilie              
| | Chief Executive Officer



May 30, 2008

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and 

STATE OF FLORIDA 

ex rel. ROBERT V. SMITH, 

 

 Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:20cv3678-MCR-EMT 

v. 

JAY A. ODOM and OKALOOSA COUNTY 

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 

 Defendants. 

______________________________________/

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record 

 I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this Court, and I appear in this case 

as counsel for the State of Florida. 

DATE: May 7, 2021 

 STATE OF FLORIDA 

 Ashley Moody 

 Attorney General 

/s/ Christopher A. Knight 

Christopher A. Knight (FBN # 1022342) 

Assistant Attorney General 

Christopher.Knight@myfloridalegal.com

Department of Legal Affairs 

PL-01, The Capitol 

 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 

 Telephone: (850) 414-3300 

 Counsel for State of Florida 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 37 Filed 05/07/21 Page 1 of 1
8 2 5 lotu s Avenue louisville

, K Y 40213 May 4, 2015 U . S . Department of Transpo

r tation Docket Management System 400 7th Street SW, Plaza 401 Washington, DC 20590-0001 Re: Exemption 8118, Docket Number FM-2003-15439 Ladies/Gentlemen: In accordance with Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14CFR) § 11
. 61, United Parcel Service (UPS)

, Operating Certificate IPXA097B

, petitions the Administrator for an extension of Exemption No . 8118, Docket FM-2003-15439. This exemption was originally granted on August 26, 2003

. Extensions were granted on August 17, 2005

, June 22, 2007, August 31 , 2009

, June 7, 2011 and July 11, 2013

. The current extension is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2015. Exemption No. 8118 provides relief to the extent necessary permitting UPS to substitute
a qualified and author

i zed check airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in 121.424(1 )(ii). The conditions and circumstances

, in regard to public interest and equivalent levels of safety

, which warranted the original grant of exemption, continue to exist. This petition does not seek to change the conditions and limitations of the current exemption

. This exemption
is not a compromiser of safety

. The renewal of this exemption is not a controversial issue

. For this reason, and the reasons stated above

, UPS requests that a f

i nding of good cause be made for waiving publication in the Federal Register (14 CFR §11

. 87) . Granting the requested relief will set no precedents

. The existence of the exemption is well known and widely accepted

. A summary of this petition as required by 14 CFR § 11.25 is attached

. If you have any questions or need additional information

, please contact either myself or Andrew Newcomer

, UPS Flight Operations Compliance

, at (502) 395-5713 or anewcomer@ups

. com
. Sincerely, Chr

i stopher 

### A. Williams Director of Operations Attachment cc : Mr . Larry A. Ortkiese



### I SPOI ACE-LOU-UPS-CM0

- 25 Mr. William H. King 

### I APOI ACE-LOU-UPS

- CM0-25

## Attachment 

# SUMMARY OF UNITED PARCEL SERVICE (UPS) PETITION United Parcel Service (UPS) petitions for an extension of Exemption No. 8118. This exemptions permits UPS to substitute
a qualified and authorized check airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in 

# § 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and landing, subject

· to certain conditions and limitations

.