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

 

**Certification of CEO 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 on Form 10-Q of KapStone Paper and Packaging Corporation for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Roger W. Stone, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of KapStone Paper and Packaging Corporation, 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 my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of KapStone Paper and Packaging Corporation.

 
| Dated:   May 2, 2011 |   |                                   |               |
|---------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|--------------------|
|                      |   |                                   |               |
|                      |   | By:                                    | /s/ Roger W. Stone |
|                      |   |                                   | Roger W. Stone     |
|                      |   | Chairman   and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-8071

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TIMOTHY EARL DAVIS, a/k/a Black,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,

Senior District Judge. (4:99-cr-00027-H)

Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 20, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter A. Schmidlin III, ANDERSON, JONES & GENGO, PLLC, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*Davis was accorded the benefit of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.

266 (1988), as September 15, 2005 was the date he certified he gave

his notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Earl Davis seeks to appeal his sentence. In

criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within

ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A).

With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or

good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to

thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4);

United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985).

The district court entered an amended judgment on

December 6, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on September 15,

2005.* Because Davis failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.

We also deny Davis’ motion to strike counsel’s appellate brief. 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 10.38
 MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE, INC.
2004 EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN
 RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT
 Summary of Restricted Stock Award Grant
  Name of Grantee:Number of Shares:Grant Date:Vesting Dates:
    
    11/15/2010*
    
    X,XXX shares11/15/2011*
    
    X,XXX shares11/15/2012*
    
    X,XXX shares
 
 *
    
    Actual date will be determined upon release of FY 2009 Net Earnings. Terms of Agreement
 1. Grant of Restricted Stock Awards.
 2. Vesting of Restricted Shares.




---



##### 



3. Forfeiture of Restricted Shares.
 4. Payment.
   5. Restrictive Legend.
 6. Transferability.
 7. Dividend, Voting and Other Rights.
 8. Continuous Employment.
 9. No Employment Contract.
 2




---



##### 



10. Relation to Other Benefits.
 11. Taxes and Withholding.
 12. Adjustments.
 13. Compliance with Law. provided however
 14. Amendments.
 15. Compliance with Section 409A of the Code.
 16. Severability.
 17. Relation to Plan.
 3




---



##### 



18. Successors and Assigns.
 19. Governing Law.
 20. Electronic Delivery.
  MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE, INC.By:Name:
    Melissa LuekeTitle:
    Vice President, Chief Financial Officer www.meridianbioscience.com
 4
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 220 

To amend section 5112 of title 31, United States Code, to limit the face 

value of coins that the Secretary of the Treasury may issue, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 14, 2013 

Mr. WALDEN (for himself, Mr. LANCE, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. HUDSON, Mr. 

WESTMORELAND, Mr. HOLDING, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mrs. NOEM, Mr. 

FINCHER, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. JONES, Mr. 

NUGENT, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. NUNNELEE, Mr. YODER, Mr. THORNBERRY, Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois, Mr. LATTA, and Mr. MILLER of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend section 5112 of title 31, United States Code, 

to limit the face value of coins that the Secretary of 

the Treasury may issue, 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 ‘‘Stop the Coin Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON FACE VALUE OF COINS. 

6 Section 5112 of title 31, United States Code, is 

7 amended— 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 220 IH

1 (1) in subsection (k)— 

2 (A) by inserting ‘‘having such nominal, or 

3 face, values as the Secretary may determine but 

4 not in any case exceeding $200’’ after ‘‘plat5 inum coins’’; and 

6 (B) by striking ‘‘denominations,’’; and 

7 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub8 section: 

9 ‘‘(w) LIMITATION ON FACE VALUE.—The Secretary 

10 may not mint or issue any coin having a nominal, or face, 

11 value exceeding $200.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with
Exhibit 32.2



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 MagnaChip Semiconductor LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 3, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Robert J. Krakauer, Executive Vice President, Strategic Operations, and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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/ Robert J. Krakauer                                                     
|Robert J. Krakauer                                                         
|Executive Vice President, Strategic Operations, and Chief Financial Officer
|September 6, 2005                                                          



A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
#### § 29.3510 Color symbols.

As applied to Dark Air-cured tobacco, color symbols are L—light brown, F—medium brown, R—reddish brown, D—dark brown, M—mixed, and G—green.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****Certification**I, Richard N. Burger, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Coleman Cable, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:  May 9, 2007 **/s/ Richard N. Burger**   **Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice**    **President, Secretary and Treasurer**  
39
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOSIAH JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:20cv200–WS/HTC

FLORIDA STATE HOSPITAL,

DIRECTOR SUSAN TRUEBLOOD, and

F. POTTER,

Defendants.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 9) docketed June 26, 2020. The magistrate judge recommends that the

plaintiff's claims against the Florida State Hospital and Director Susan Trueblood

be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The

plaintiff has filed no objections to the report and recommendation.

Having reviewed the record, the court finds that the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation is due to be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Case 4:20-cv-00200-WS-HTC Document 17 Filed 09/02/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 9) is hereby

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order. 

2. The plaintiff's claims against the Florida State Hospital and Director

Susan Trueblood are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted.

3. The clerk shall note on the docket that the Florida State Hospital and

Director Susan Trueblood have been terminated as defendants in this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of September , 2020.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00200-WS-HTC Document 17 Filed 09/02/20 Page 2 of 2
1

Werner, Christopher

From: Szabo, Aaron <Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov>

Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 9:39 AM

To: Werner, Christopher

Cc: Lorang, Phil; Jones, Rhea; Beaver, Melinda; Marks, Matthew; Anderson, Lea; VanLare, 

Paula; Greenglass, Nora; Smith, Kristi; Wood, Anna

Subject: Summary of Additional Interagency Comments under EO12866 and 13563: EPA NPRM 

-- Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans (RIN 2060-

AS55)

Attachments: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866_E013563_Regional Haze_

2060....docx

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Completed

Categories: Regional Haze

Attached please find the summary of additional interagency comments under EO 12866 and 13563 for the draft 

proposed rule entitled, Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans (RIN 2060-AS55). These 

comments are in response to the most recent information provided by EPA for interagency review. 

Aaron L. Szabo 

Policy Analyst 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

Office of Management and Budget 

202-395-3621 

Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In  connection  with the Annual  Report of IR  BioSciences  Holdings,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, John
Fermanis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.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 results of operations of the Company.

/S/ John Fermanis
-----------------------
Chief Financial Officer
November 16, 2005

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, an other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section  906,  has been  provided to Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Exhibit
10.41


 


THIRD
AMENDMENT TO THE


MIRANT
SERVICES


SUPPLEMENTAL
COMPENSATION PLAN


 


WHEREAS,
on March 28, 2001, Mirant Services, LLC (the “Company”) adopted the Mirant
Services Supplemental Compensation Plan (the “Plan”), to compensate a specific
group of Employees for their loss of eligibility for benefits under the Mirant
Services Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan and the Mirant Services
Supplemental Benefit Plan following the spin-off of Mirant Corporation from The
Southern Company; and


 


WHEREAS,
pursuant to Section 6.3 of the Plan, the Board of Managers of the Company (the “Board”)
has the authority to amend the Plan; and


 


WHEREAS,
the Board has delegated its authority to amend the Plan, provided such
amendment does not have a material effect on the cost of the Plan, to the
Americas Benefits Committee (the “Committee”); and


 


WHEREAS,
the Committee desires to amend the Plan to remove all references to a “Change
in Control” from the Plan effective as of August 27, 2004; and


 


WHEREAS,
the Committee has determined that the above amendment would not have a material
effect on the cost of the Plan.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the Committee hereby amends the Plan as follows,
to be effective as of August 27, 2004:


 


I.


 


Section
1.5 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


 


“2.5         [Deleted]”


 


II.


 


Section
4.4 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


 


“4.4         [Deleted]”


 


III.


 


Section
6.3 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


 


“6.3         Amendment and Termination.  The Plan may be amended, modified, or
terminated by the Board of Managers in its sole discretion at any time and from
time to time.  However, no amendment or
termination shall cause a forfeiture or reduction in any accrued benefits as of
the date of such amendment or termination. 
This Plan shall terminate on March 31, 2006, unless earlier terminated
by the Board of Managers.”


 





















 


IV.


 


All parts
of the Plan not inconsistent here with are hereby ratified and confirmed.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, Mirant Services, LLC, through its duly
authorized officer pursuant to a unanimous consent of the Committee dated
September 29, 2004, has adopted this Third Amendment to the Mirant Services
Supplemental Compensation Plan on this 29th day of September, 2004, to be effective
August 27, 2004.


 


	
   

  	
  MIRANT SERVICES, LLC:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Vance
  N. Booker

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  SVP,
  Administration

  



 


2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6172

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HON. W. EARL BRITT; JEFF SESSIONS, USAG; JAMES GARNETT, JR., PRJ; 

DONAL HUNTER, PRJ; USMS UNKNOWN DEPUTY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:18-cv-00166-MSD-LRL)

Submitted: June 27, 2019 Decided: July 17, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order transferring his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion to the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina. The district court entered its transfer order on May 25, 2018. 

Davis did not file his notice of appeal until January 2019. However, prior to filing his 

notice of appeal, Davis filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. The district court 

received Davis’ motion on June 25, 2018. In order for the Rule 60 motion to render 

Davis’ notice of appeal timely filed as to the underlying transfer order, the motion was 

due on June 22, 2018. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Because Davis is incarcerated, the 

motion is considered filed as of the date it was properly delivered to prison officials for 

mailing to the court. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76 (1988). The record does not 

reveal when Davis gave the Rule 60 motion to prison officials for mailing. Accordingly, 

we remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to obtain this 

information from Davis and to determine whether the filing was timely under Houston v. 

Lack. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further 

consideration.

REMANDED
#### § 27.95 Spot markets to conform to Act and regulations.

Every bona fide spot market shall, as a condition of its designation and of the retention thereof, conform to the act and any applicable regulations.

[53 FR 29327, Aug. 4, 1988]
#### [The State ex rel.] McDonald, Appellee, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellant.

[Cite as *State ex rel. McDonald v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 99.]

*100(No. 96-154

Submitted May 26, 1998

Decided September 9, 1998.)

*Sheldon Karp Co., L.P.A.,*and *R. Mark Gottfried,,*for appellee.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Mary Ann O. Rini,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of *State ex rel. Tapp v. Parsec, Inc.*(1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 417, 696 N.E.2d 591, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DYLAN EGLESTON, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20-cv-106-AW-GRJ

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD 

OF TRUSTEES, as the public body 

corporate of University of Florida, and 

FLORIDA BOARD OF GOVERNORS 

FOUNDATION, INC.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER CLOSING FILE

Plaintiff has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. ECF No. 36. The notice is 

effective without an order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Matthews v. Gaither, 

902 F.2d 877, 880 (11th Cir. 1990). This order confirms that the case has been 

dismissed. The clerk will close the file.

SO ORDERED on September 1, 2020. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 37 Filed 09/01/20 Page 1 of 1
# C_2020042DE.01003401.xml

| 7.2.2020 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | C 42/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2020

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

C 42/34

---

Berichtigung des Abkommens vom 22. Januar 2020 zwischen der Europäischen Zentralbank und den nationalen Zentralbanken der nicht dem Euro-Währungsgebiet angehörenden Mitgliedstaaten zur Änderung des Abkommens vom 16. März 2006 zwischen der Europäischen Zentralbank und den nationalen Zentralbanken der nicht dem Euro-Währungsgebiet angehörenden Mitgliedstaaten über die Funktionsweise eines Wechselkursmechanismus in der dritten Stufe der Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union C 32 I vom 1. Februar 2020
  )

(2020/C 42/07)

Auf Seite 5 erhält die die erste Tabelle im Anhang folgende Fassung:

| (in Mio. EUR) |
| --- |
| „An diesem Abkommen beteiligte Zentralbanken | Höchstgrenzen (1) |
| Българска народна банка (Bulgarische Nationalbank) | 780 |
| Česká národní banka | 1 260 |
| Danmarks Nationalbank | 1 190 |
| Hrvatska narodna banka | 600 |
| Magyar Nemzeti Bank | 1 080 |
| Narodowy Bank Polski | 3 480 |
| Banca Naţională a României | 1 760 |
| Sveriges Riksbank | 1 850 |
| Europäische Zentralbank | null |

(in Mio. EUR)

„An diesem Abkommen beteiligte Zentralbanken

Höchstgrenzen (1)

Българска народна банка (Bulgarische Nationalbank)

780

Česká národní banka

1 260

Danmarks Nationalbank

1 190

Hrvatska narodna banka

600

Magyar Nemzeti Bank

1 080

Narodowy Bank Polski

3 480

Banca Naţională a României

1 760

Sveriges Riksbank

1 850

Europäische Zentralbank

null

---

(1)  Im Falle der Zentralbanken, die nicht am WKM II teilnehmen, sind die angegebenen Höchstgrenzen fiktive Werte.“

1

---