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

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

I, John C. Textor, Chief Executive Officer of BabyUniverse, Inc. (the “Company”) in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge: 

(1)     the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(2)     the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 14th day of August 2006. 

|   | */s/ John C. Textor*      |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   |                           |
|   | *John C. Textor*          |
|   | *Chief Executive Officer* |
#### The State ex rel. Metal Seal & Products, Inc., Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Metal Seal & Products, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 376.]

(No. 96-570

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided October 14, 1998.)

*Willacy, LoPresti & Marcovy*and *Timothy A. Marcovy,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Cheryl J. Nester,*Assistant' Attorney General, for appellees Industrial Commission and Administrator, Bureau of Workers’ Compensation.

*Wincek & DeRosa Co., L.P.A.,*and *Christopher G. Wincek,*for appellee Barbara Brewster.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, J., concur in part and dissent in part.

*377Lundberg Stratton, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part. I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals on the issue of wage-loss compensation, and affirm on all other issues.

Moyer, C.J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DIRECTV INC,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:03-cv-00085-MP-AK

THOMAS E CONNOR,

BRENT DIAMOND,

THOMAS FRANCELLA,

Defendants.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 35, Defendant's Notice of Settlement, Doc. 34,

Defendant's Notice of Cancelling Hearing, and Doc. 36, Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Set

Aside Default Judgment. 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Set Aside Judgment, Doc. 36, is GRANTED.

The Court's Order of Default Judgment, Doc. 18 & 19, are VACATED.

2. Defendant's Notice of Cancelling Hearing, Doc. 34, is GRANTED. The motion

hearing scheduled for Friday, May 20, 2005, is cancelled.

3. This case is DISMISSED. The Court will retain jurisdiction for 60 days to ensure

the parties effectuate settlement.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of May, 2005.

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:03-cv-00085-MP-AK Document 37 Filed 05/19/05 Page 1 of 1
|  |
|--|
| Home |  Advanced Search |  Directory |  Site Map |  Privacy Policy |  Accessibility |  Contact Us                                          |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| About  Our Work  Career Opportunities  Business With Us  Information Resources  Outreach |
|  

LIBRARY

VOLPE JOURNAL

HIGHLIGHTS

PUBLISHED AND PRESENTED

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

TRANSPORTATIONSTRATEGIC PLANS

LINKS                  |  
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle R&D; Strategic Plan
**April 2000**
Table of Contents1. Introduction2. Background 2.1 Previous Strategic Planning 2.2 Emissions and Energy Trends 2.3 Research Needs 2.4 Technical Goals 2.5 Recent R&D Activities3. R&D Supporting Progress Toward Technical Goals 3.1 Fuels 3.2 Energy Storage 3.3 Powertrain 3.4 Materials 3.5 Vehicle Design 3.6 Accessories 3.7 Information and Communications Systems 3.8 Vehicle/Fuel Systems and Infrastructure Analysis4. Milestones and Prioritization of Tasks5. Management Plan6. Resources and FundingReferencesAppendix A. – Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program FY 2001 Program AnnouncementAppendix B. – Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program FY 1999 Project SummariesList of Figures
1. U.S. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), and Fine Particulate Matter (PM) from Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles

2. U.S. Energy Consumption by Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles

3. Energy Intensity of Automobiles and Transit Buses
List of Tables
1. Goals for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle R&D

2. Funding Plan for DOT Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle R&D

Prepared by:

United States Department of TransportationResearch and Special Programs AdministrationJohn A. Volpe National Transportation Systems CenterTransportation Strategic Planning and Analysis Office55 BroadwayCambridge, Massachusetts, 02142-1093

Next section |

 
|   U.S. Department of Transportation | Research and Special Programs Administration  |   |
|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.49

                             FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
                           PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION
                           DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN


        WHEREAS, Peabody Energy Corporation (the "Company") previously
established, and currently maintains, the Peabody Energy Corporation Deferred
Compensation Plan (the "Plan") for the benefit of a select group of management
or highly compensated employees;

        WHEREAS, as a result of new tax legislation, the Company deems it
desirable to no longer allow employees to begin participation in the Plan and to
no longer allow new contributions to be made to the Plan on or after the
effective date of such new tax legislation;

        WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10.1 of the Plan, the Company, through
action of the Board, has the power to amend the Plan to effectuate the
foregoing;

        NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Plan be, and it hereby is,
amended as follows:

                                       I.

        Article II of the Plan is amended by adding a new Section 2.3 at the end
thereof to read as follows:

                "2.3 NO NEW PARTICIPANT. Notwithstanding anything herein to the
        contrary, the Committee shall not select any additional Employees to
        become Eligible Employees or otherwise allow Employees previously
        selected as Eligible Employees to become Participants in the Plan for
        purposes of deferring compensation on or after the effective date of
        Section 409A of the Code."

                                       II.

        Article III, Section 3.1 of the Plan is amended by adding the following
at the end thereof:

                "Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, no additional
        Employee Deferral Election shall be allowed to be filed under the Plan
        for purposes of deferring compensation on or after the effective date of
        Section 409A of the Code."


<PAGE>

                                      III.

        In all other respects, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.


        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to be
signed by its duly authorized officer this __ day of December 2004.


                                  PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION


                                  By:
                                     --------------------------
                                        Sharon D. Fiehler
                                        Executive Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       5
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                          3,454,000
<SECURITIES>                    000
<RECEIVABLES>                   277,000
<ALLOWANCES>                    000
<INVENTORY>                     000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                3,934,000
<PP&E>                          000
<DEPRECIATION>			000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>			3,934,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>		2,990,000
<BONDS>				000
<COMMON>                        000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           000
<PREFERRED>                     000
<OTHER-SE>                      944,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>	3,934,000
<SALES>				000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                1,046,000
<CGS>                           000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                319,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>		000
<INCOME-PRETAX>			730,000
<INCOME-TAX>                    000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>		730,000
<DISCONTINUED>			000
<EXTRAORDINARY>			000
<CHANGES>                       000
<NET-INCOME>                    730,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   11.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                   000
        		

</TABLE>
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2340 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to protect States that have in 

effect laws or orders with respect to pay to play reform, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 12, 2013 

Mr. QUIGLEY (for himself, Mr. FOSTER, and Ms. DUCKWORTH) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to protect States 

that have in effect laws or orders with respect to pay 

to play reform, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘State Ethics Law Pro5 tection Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PAY TO PLAY REFORM. 

7 Section 112 of title 23, United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 2340 IH

1 ‘‘(h) PAY TO PLAY REFORM.—A State transpor2 tation department shall not be considered to have violated 

3 a requirement of this section solely because the State in 

4 which that State transportation department is located, or 

5 a local government within that State, has in effect a law 

6 or an order that limits the amount of money an individual 

7 or entity that is doing business with a State or local agen8 cy with respect to a Federal-aid highway project may con9 tribute to a political party, campaign, candidate, or elected 

10 official.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs CASE NO: 3:99CR77-001/LAC

TYRELL L. PLAIR,

Defendant.

__________________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the United States of America to file a

motion attesting to his substantial assistance in the investigation and prosecution of persons

involved in drug activity. The Court determines that the decision to file a Rule 35 motion

on behalf of the petitioner is a discretionary act on the part of the United States Attorney. As

the Court can not compel such action, the Motion for a Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.

Petitioner claims that the Government has acted in bad faith by failing to agree with

him that the assistance rendered by him was substantial. Such a bare claim does not meet the

“substantial showing “ of unconstitutional motive required under Wade v. United States, 504

U.S. 181 (1993). The decision to file a 5K1.1 or Rule 35 motion is a matter of prosecutorial

discretion. United States v. Forney, 9 F.3d 1492,1501 (11th Cir. 1993). The petitioner

acknowledged this in his plea agreement agreeing that this discretion was specifically

reserved to the Government. A writ of mandamus cannot compel a discretionary action.

Einhorn v. DeWitt, 618 F.2d 347 (5th Cir. 1980). 

DONE this 2nd day of May 2005.

 s/L.A. Collier 

 LACEY A. COLLIER

 Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cr-00077-LC Document 121 Filed 05/02/05 Page 1 of 1
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:98CR126 LAC

MICHAEL BLANKENSHIP

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on July 21, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FROM THIS HONORABLE 

COURT DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S RULE 60(b) EXTRA-ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on7/21/08 Doc.# 270

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 22

nd day of

July, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:98-cr-00126-LC-MD Document 271 Filed 07/22/08 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

GLOBAL MARINE EXPLORATION, 

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-181-AW-MJF

REPUBLIC OF FRANCE, 

Defendant.

_______________________________/

AMENDED1 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULE

Defendant’s unopposed motion to amend the scheduling order (ECF No. 47) 

is GRANTED to this extent: the deadline for the parties’ Rule 26(f) meeting is 

extended to October 7, and the deadline to file the Rule 26 Meeting Report is 

extended to October 14. Discovery may begin after the meeting. The court will adjust 

the discovery deadline and trial date after reviewing the parties’ report. 

Defendant’s deadline to respond to the complaint is extended to October 7.

SO ORDERED on June 21, 2022. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

1 This order supersedes yesterday’s order (ECF No. 48), which, because of my 

oversight, did not extend the deadline to respond to the complaint. 

Case 4:20-cv-00181-AW-MJF Document 49 Filed 06/21/22 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Tuan Ha-Ngoc, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to his knowledge on the date hereof: 

(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 ofoperations of the Company. 

Date: May 12, 2011
#### § 2900.6 Effective date.

This rule shall become effective on May 14, 1979.
#### §§ 1901.256-1901.258 [Reserved]
#### § 30.6 Type.

A subdivision of a class of leaf tobacco, having certain common characteristics which permit of its being divided into a number of related grades. Any tobacco that has the same characteristics and corresponding qualities, colors, and lengths, shall be treated as one type, regardless of any factors of historical or geographical nature which cannot be determined by an examination of the tobacco.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1823 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1823

 To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the importation or 
   exportation of mussels of a certain genus, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 2013

    Mr. Heck of Nevada (for himself and Mr. Amodei) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the importation or 
   exportation of mussels of a certain genus, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Protecting Lakes Against Quaggas Act 
of 2013'' or as the ``PLAQ Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. IN GENERAL.

    Section 42(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``of the zebra mussel of the species 
        Dreissena polymorpha;''; and
            (2) by inserting after ``Hypophthalmichthys nobilis;'' the 
        following: ``of the species of mussels of the genus 
        Dreissena''.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

§ 283.31 Review of the record. ( a ) The ALJ shall review the cross motions for summary judgment, briefs, reply briefs and supporting materials submitted by both FNS and the State agency.
( b ) If the ALJ decides that additional information or briefing is required from a party, a request for such information or briefing shall be submitted to such party with a copy to the other party. The request shall identify the additional information or specific issues to be addressed and shall specify the date(s) by which such information or briefing must be provided. Upon receipt of such additional information or briefing, the ALJ shall provide the other party an opportunity to submit responsive information or briefing.
( c ) If the party to whom a request for additional information or briefing is made fails to submit the information or brief the issue(s) as requested, the ALJ may decide the appeal based on the existing record.
( d ) If the ALJ decides that oral argument is necessary on legal issues, the ALJ shall set a time for the oral arguments as soon as feasible thereafter, with due regard for the public interest and the convenience and necessity of the State agency and FNS. The oral arguments shall be held at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Upon a showing of unusual or extraordinary circumstances, the ALJ may order that the argument be held at another location. The ALJ shall file a notice stating the time and place of the oral arguments. If any change in the time of the oral arguments is made, the ALJ shall file a notice of such change, which notice shall be served upon the parties, unless it is made during the course of the oral arguments and made a part of the transcript or actual notice given to the parties.
( e ) Oral argument shall not be transcribed unless so ordered in advance by the ALJ for cause shown upon request of a party or upon the ALJ's own motion.
#### § 28.516 Leaf Grade No. 6.

Leaf grade No. 6 shall be American Pima cotton which in leaf is within the range represented by a set of samples in the custody of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in a container marked “Original Official Cotton Standards of the United States, American Pima, Leaf Grade No. 6, effective July 1, 2001.”

[65 FR 36601, June 9, 2000]
Tredegar Corporation







Exhibit 10.7.1


 


 



	
            Tredegar Industries, Inc.
 



 


Amendment to


Tredegar Industries, Inc. Retirement Benefit Restoration Plan


(Effective January 1, 1999)


 



	
            1.
 	
            Section 1.08 is amended by deleting it in its entirety and substituting therefor the following:
 



 


Section 1.08.        Eligible Employee means an individual who is employed by the Company or an Affiliate and who is a member of a "select group of management or highly compensated employees" (as such phrase is used in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended). 


 



	
            2.
 	
            Section 7.01 shall be amended by deleting the last sentence thereof and substituting therefor the following:
 



 


Such right to amend or modify the Plan shall be exercised by the Company by the Committee and such right to terminate the Plan shall be exercised by the Company by its Board of Directors.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

AARON C. PORTER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20cv138-TKW-MJF

MARK S. INCH, et al.,

Defendants.

/

OR D E R

This case is before the Court based upon the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 3). No objections to the Report and Recommendation were 

filed. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the case file, I agree 

with the magistrate judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed because 

Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and he is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis

pursuant to the “three strikes” statute, 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that:

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

incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED, and the Clerk shall close the case file.

Case 5:20-cv-00138-TKW-MJF Document 10 Filed 07/27/20 Page 1 of 2
2

DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of July, 2020.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00138-TKW-MJF Document 10 Filed 07/27/20 Page 2 of 2