alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 249.7 Nondiscrimination. ( a ) *Civil rights requirements.* ( 1 ) The State agency must comply with the following requirements to ensure that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, age, sex or disability, be excluded from participation, be denied benefits, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination, under the SFMNP: ( i ) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
( ii ) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972;
( iii ) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
( iv ) The Age Discrimination Act of 1975;
( v ) Department of Agriculture regulations on nondiscrimination (parts 15, 15a and 15b of this title); and
( vi ) Applicable FNS Instructions, including requirements for racial and ethnic participation data collection, public notification of the nondiscrimination policy, and annual reviews of each local agency's racial and ethnic participation data (as required by title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).
( 2 ) Compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and regulations and instructions issued thereunder shall include, but not be limited to: ( i ) Notification to the public of the nondiscrimination policy and complaint rights of participants and potentially eligible persons, which may be satisfied through FNS' required nondiscrimination statement on brochures and publications;
( ii ) Review and monitoring activity to ensure SFMNP compliance with the nondiscrimination laws and regulations; and
( iii ) Establishment of grievance procedures for handling participant complaints based on sex and handicap.
( b ) *Complaints.* Persons seeking to file discrimination complaints may file them either with the Secretary of Agriculture, or the Director, Office of Civil Rights, USDA, Washington, DC 20250 or with the office established by the State agency to handle discrimination grievances or complaints. All complaints received by State agencies that allege discrimination based on race, color, national origin, or age shall be referred to the Secretary of Agriculture or the Director of the Office of Civil Rights, USDA. A State agency may process complaints that allege discrimination based on sex or disability if grievance procedures are in place.
EXHIBIT 32.2

STATEMENT REQUIRED BY 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 on Form 10-QSB of China Runji Cement Inc. for the three and six months ended February 29, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Yichun Jiang, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer, certify that:

* the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

* information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, our financial condition and results of operations.

/s/ Yichun Jiang
Yichun Jiang
Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer



|April 14, 2008
|--------------

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by us for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 175 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 175

   To require labor organizations to provide the notice to employees 
related to fees collection required pursuant to the Supreme Court cases 
     Teachers Local No. 1 v. Hudson and Knox v. Service Employees 
                          International Union.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2013

   Mr. Griffin of Arkansas introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require labor organizations to provide the notice to employees 
related to fees collection required pursuant to the Supreme Court cases 
     Teachers Local No. 1 v. Hudson and Knox v. Service Employees 
                          International Union.

    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 ``Employee Paycheck Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. NOTICE REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO FEES COLLECTION BY LABOR 
              ORGANIZATIONS.

    (a) Notice Required.--Prior to imposing or collecting any dues or 
fees from its members or from any other employees covered by a 
collective bargaining agreement, or increasing any such dues or fees, a 
labor organization shall provide all employees covered by the 
collective bargaining agreement with a written notice explaining how 
the labor organization calculated the share of such dues or fees that 
are for non-political costs related to collective bargaining.
    (b) Affirmative Consent Required From Non-Union Employees.--A labor 
organization may not exact any funds for dues or fees from any employee 
covered by a collective bargaining agreement who is not a member of the 
labor organization without the affirmative consent of such employee.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    As used in this Act, the terms ``employee'' and ``labor 
organization'' have the meanings given such terms in section 2 of the 
National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152).
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CASE NO.: 3:20-cv-02692-MCR-MJF

STEVEN LAMONT MARKOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FLOAT MY BOAT RENTALS LLC AND 

CAPTAIN CLEVER MARKETING, LLC,

Defendants.

DECLARATION OF WILLIAM HOLLIMON

I, William Hollimon, declare and say:

1. I am an attorney licensed in the State of Florida and in the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Florida. 

2. I have practiced law for 25 years.

3. I have no interests in or conflicts with the parties or the outcome of this case.

4. I have reviewed the billing rates in the Declaration of Joel B. Rothman [DE – 9 –

02] and find the rates reasonable. 

5. The billing rate for a managing partner with more than twenty years’ experience 

of $475 per hour is reasonable in the local prevailing rates. 0.2 hours is a reasonable amount of 

time for a managing partner to spend on a default judgment such as this. 

6. The billing rate for a partner in practice more than ten years of $450 per hour is 

reasonable in the local prevailing rates. 0.1 hours is a reasonable amount of time for a senior 

partner to spend on a default judgment such as this. 

Case 3:20-cv-02692-MCR-MJF Document 11 Filed 07/28/21 Page 1 of 2
2

7. The billing rate of an Associate Attorney with five years experience of $325 per 

hour is reasonable in the local prevailing rates. 10.9 hours is a reasonable amount of time for the 

primary attorney handling the file to spend on a default judgment such as this. 

8. The billing rate of a paralegal of $200 per hour is reasonable in the local 

prevailing rates. 11.8 hours is a reasonable amount of time for all paralegals combined to spend 

on a default judgment such as this

I declare under perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing 

is true and correct.

Executed on July 28, 2021 at Tallahassee, Florida.

/s/ William Hollimon

William Hollimon

Case 3:20-cv-02692-MCR-MJF Document 11 Filed 07/28/21 Page 2 of 2
Executive Incentive Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.11 
  
 VIRGINIA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. 
 INCENTIVE PLAN FOR EXECUTIVE MANAGERS 
  
 INCOME OBJECTIVE 
  
 EPS growth 
  
 Weighting - 50% of total incentive target  
  

	 	•	 	Start payment threshold – 6.0% fully diluted EPS growth above 2004 actual. Note that 2005 EPS growth below 6% would result in no incentive payment against this objective.


  

	 	•	 	Target Performance – 10% growth 

  
 REVENUE GROWTH 
  
 Organic Growth in “Value Added” (Net Interest Income + Non-Interest Income - excluding gain/loss on sale of securities, but including revenue gains from acquisitions) 

 
 Weighting - 50% of total incentive target 
  

	 	•	 	Start payment threshold established 

  

	 	•	 	Target Performance reflecting 10% growth) 

  

	 	•	 	Payout for performance above target is capped.
98- 1344.

#### Stover v. State Farm Ins. Co.

Seneca App. No. 13-98-12.

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Section 906Certification**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), the undersigned officer of GuarantyBancorp (the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated:October 30, 2009

 

 
|   | /s/ Paul  W. Taylor |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | Name:                    | Paul W. Taylor |
|   | Title:                   | *Chief  Financial and Operating Officer and Secretary* |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solelypursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosuredocument.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
ART. 5 FDS FOR 10-K
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     APR-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                          APR-30-1996
<CASH>                                                      9,260
<SECURITIES>                                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              16,667
<ALLOWANCES>                                                1,752
<INVENTORY>                                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                0
<PP&E>                                                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             28,815
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                           0
<BONDS>                                                    26,408
<COMMON>                                                    1,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                                 (1,435)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               28,815
<SALES>                                                     2,610
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            2,610
<CGS>                                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              973
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              957
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          1,382
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              (702)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          (702)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 (702)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0
        

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JOHN BROWNING,

Petitioner, 

vs. 1:03-CV-163-SPM/AK

PAUL DECKER, et al.,

Respondents.

_____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND DISMISSING CASE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the magistrate judge's report

and recommendation (doc. 26) dated June 29, 2006. The parties have been

furnished a copy and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections. No

objections have been filed.

Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I have

determined that the report and recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 26) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 1:03-cv-00163-MP-AK Document 28 Filed 08/24/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1) is hereby denied.

3. This case is dismissed with prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED this twenty-fourth day of August, 2006.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 1:03-cv-00163-MP-AK Document 28 Filed 08/24/06 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7105

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH RICKY DODD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (2:96-cr-00153-HCM-2)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 22, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Ricky Dodd, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman,

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Ricky Dodd appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. United States v. Dodd, No. 2:96-cr-00153-HCM-2

(E.D. Va. filed May 21, 2008; entered May 23, 2008). We dispense

with 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.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
 
 **Certification of the President and CFO**
 **Pursuant to Section 906**
 **of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
 
 In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 2) of PrimeSource Healthcare, Inc. (the "Company") for the annual period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Joseph H. Potenza, as the President of the Company, and Shaun D. McMeans, as the Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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 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.
 
 
  /s/ Joseph H. Potenza
 Name: Joseph H. Potenza
 Date: February 22, 2005
 
 
  /s/ Shaun D. McMeans
 Name: Shaun D. McMeans
 Date: February 22, 2005
 
 
  This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 8 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 
 72
#### In the Matter of Evelyn L. Rosenblum, Respondent, v. Als Liquors, Inc., et al., Appellants, and State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Order entered on July 25, 1966, affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to the respondent. Concur-—■ Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ. Stevens, J., dissents in the following memorandum. I dissent and vote to reverse and deny the injunction for the reasons hereinafter stated. This is a proceeding for injunctive relief brought pursuant to sections 123 and 124 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. Petitioner, a taxpayer and owner of a retail liquor store, alleges that the appellants, retail liquor store dealers, are violating subdivision 19 of section 105 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. Subdivision 19 of section 105 provides: “No licensee authorized to sell beer or liquor at retail for consumption off the premises shall display any sign on or adjacent to the licensed premises, setting forth *the price*at which beer or liquor, or any brand thereof, is sold or offered for sale, or advertise *such*price in any other manner or by any other means,' except in the interior of the licensed premises.” (Emphasis supplied.) Appellants had been variously advertising particular liquors as “ priced under ” “ pay less than ” a stated *522price and petitioner contends that such advertisements with close mathematical accuracy featured the purchase price of the liquor and that was the purpose and intent of the advertising and this violated the statute. A close reading of the statute, noting its language in reference to *“*the price ” and *“*such price ” indicates that what is prohibited is the naming of the actual price. (It might be noted that this prohibition applies to retailers but not distillers who may freely advertise the exact price.) So read, the advertising complained of is clearly not a violation of the statute. The State Liquor Authority of the State of New York, the agency primarily charged with the duty of administering the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, urged below and as *amicus curice*on this appeal asserts that the use of the phrases in question are not in violation of subdivision 19 of section 105 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. The opinion of the Authority as such agency is entitled to great weight *(Matter of Katz’s Delicatessen*v. *O’Connell,*302 N. Y. 286). Its interpretation would seem also to accord with the recommendations of the Moreland Act Commission and the Governor’s Emergency Message of February 10, 1964 which requested revision of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. As a result the Legislature eliminated from the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law *“*artificial restrictions on competition in retail liquor selling ” (see *Matter of Hub Wine & Liq. Co.*v. *State Liq. Auth.,*16 N Y 2d 112, 117). The statute- is to be read as a whole and as so read the advertising complained of is violative neither of the law nor the spirit of the statute (see, also, *Cohen*v. *State Liq. Auth.,*52 Misc 2d 111). [50 Misc 2d 1036.]
Case 5:20-cr-00010-MW-MJF Document 7 Filed 02/18/20 Page 1 of 6
Case 5:20-cr-00010-MW-MJF Document 7 Filed 02/18/20 Page 2 of 6
Case 5:20-cr-00010-MW-MJF Document 7 Filed 02/18/20 Page 3 of 6
Case 5:20-cr-00010-MW-MJF Document 7 Filed 02/18/20 Page 4 of 6
Case 5:20-cr-00010-MW-MJF Document 7 Filed 02/18/20 Page 5 of 6
Case 5:20-cr-00010-MW-MJF Document 7 Filed 02/18/20 Page 6 of 6
*Tuesday, August 18, 1998*

MERIT DOCKET

98-1415.

#### State ex rel. GMS Mgt. Co., Inc. v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm.

In Mandamus and Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for writs of mandamus and prohibition. Upon consideration of the motions to dismiss of Judge Bond and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and Attorney General Betty D. Montgomery,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motions to dismiss be, and hereby are, granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas, J., would grant an alternative writ.
Exhibit 10.07D


FOURTH

EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION

OF

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


THIS FOURTH EXTENSION AND
MODIFICATION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Extension”) is entered into as of March
14, 2005 by and between California Coastal Communities, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(“Employer”), and SANDRA G. SCIUTTO (“Executive”).


W I T N E S S E T H:


WHEREAS, Executive and
Employer have entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of May 1, 1998,
an Extension and Modification of Employment Agreement dated December 7, 1999,
a Second Extension and Modification of Employment Agreement dated
April 30, 2001, and a Third Extension and Modification of Employment
Agreement dated March 17, 2003 (collectively, the “Employment Agreement”),
through which Executive has provided various executive capacities to Employer
and Employer has obtained various executive services by Executive; and


WHEREAS, Employer desires
to obtain the benefit of continued service from Executive by extending the
Employment Agreement, and Executive desires to render continued services to
Employer by extending the Employment Agreement pursuant to the terms and
conditions of this Extension;


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing recitals and the mutual promises and covenants
herein contained, the parties agree as follows:


SECTION 1.           CONTINUING
EFFECTIVENESS OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT.  Except to the extent of any modification made
pursuant to the terms of this Extension, the Employment Agreement shall
continue to remain in full force and effect following the date hereof.


SECTION 2.           EXTENSION OF
TERM.  Employer and Executive
hereby agree to extend the term of the Employment Agreement
until April 30, 2007.


SECTION 3.           BASE SALARY.  Effective January 1, 2005 and until the
expiration of the term set forth in Section 2 above, Employer agrees to
pay Executive a base salary of at least One Hundred and Eighty-Five Thousand
Dollars ($185,000) per year in semi-monthly installments on the same
dates the other senior officers of Employer are paid.


SECTION 4.           BONUS.  From the date hereof and until the expiration
of the term set forth in Section 2 above, Employer agrees to provide
Executive with the opportunity to earn an annual incentive bonus of Ninety
Thousand Dollars ($90,000) based upon achieving performance targets which will
be mutually agreed upon.


 


 


1





















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties have executed this Extension as of the date first above written.


 




	
  “EMPLOYER”

  
	
   

  
	
  CALIFORNIA
  COASTAL COMMUNITIES, INC.

  
	
   

  
	
  By 

  	
  /s/ RAYMOND J.
  PACINI

  
	
   

  	
  Raymond J.
  Pacini

  
	
   

  	
  Chief Executive
  Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  “EXECUTIVE”

  
	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ SANDRA G.
  SCIUTTO

  
	
  Sandra G.
  Sciutto

  






 


 


2