alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Donald R. ChappelDonald R. ChappelChief Financial Officer of Williams Partners
GP LLC, general partner of Williams Partners L.P.
(Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.1





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-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael K. Wilhelm, Chief Executive 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.





IR BIOSCIENCES HOLDINGS, INC.Date: May 24, 2011
By:
/s/ Michael K. WilhelmMichael K. WilhelmPresident and Chief Executive Officer





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 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Each of theundersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Bidz.com, Inc.(“Bidz.com”), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Bidz.com on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that theinformation contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operation of Bidz.com.

 
| Date:  August 10,  2009 | By     | /s/  David Zinberg       |
|----------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                                   |   | David  Zinberg           |
|                                   |   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|                                   |   |                     |
| Date:  August 10,  2009 | By     | /s/  Lawrence Kong       |
|                                   |   | Lawrence  Kong           |
|                                   |   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.61

           FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE FISHER SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL INC.
                     EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT AND SAVINGS PLAN

      The Compensation Committee hereby amends the Fisher Scientific
International Inc. Executive Retirement and Savings Plan (as restated effective
June 23, 1997) pursuant to Section 11.2, effective as of July 1, 2000, as
follows:

      Section 8.2 shall be amended in its entirety to read:

      "8.2 Savings Account Credited Earnings, Gains or Losses.

            (a) Interest. Amounts credited to the Savings Account during any
      year shall accrue interest at a predetermined rate as set forth by the
      Administrative Committee, or such predetermined alternative investments as
      may be approved by the Investment Committee.

            (b) Investment Funds. Notwithstanding Section 8.2(a), effective as
      of July 1, 2000, selected Participants (as designated from time to time by
      the Administrative Committee) with a credited Savings Account under the
      Plan, may be permitted, subject to Investment Committee discretion, rules
      and procedures, to direct how amounts credited to such Participant's
      Savings Account shall be deemed invested for purposes of crediting
      earnings, gains or losses to such accounts; provided, however, that any
      credit of earnings, gains or losses shall be pursuant to a predetermined
      investment fund as affirmatively elected by the Participant prior to the
      beginning of the period for which such credit is made. The Investment
      Committee may, in its sole discretion, direct the establishment of one or
      more investment funds for Participant directed instructions, or may
      terminate any investment fund, as it deems appropriate. The Investment
      Committee shall announce to selected Participants the addition or deletion
      of an investment fund prior to the effective date of any such change. If
      permitted, any changes by a selected Participant in Savings Account
      elections among investment funds shall be made in accordance with
      Investment Committee rules and procedures for investment fund elections.
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case Nos. 3:96cr61/RV/CJK 

3:12cv293/RV/CJK

JOHNNIE CHARLES REED

_____________________________/

ORDER

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

Recommendation dated September 30, 2014 (doc. 359). Defendant has been furnished a copy of the

Report and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, 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. Defendant’s amended motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. 346) is

DISMISSED, as this court lacks jurisdiction to consider a successive motion absent authorization

from the Eleventh Circuit.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of October, 2014.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:96-cr-00061-RV-CJK Document 361 Filed 10/31/14 Page 1 of 1
#### § 202.40 Proceedings prior to reporting for criminal prosecution.

The Director shall, before any violation of this act is reported to any U.S. attorney for institution of a criminal proceeding, notify the person against whom such proceeding is contemplated that action is contemplated, inform him regarding the facts involved, and afford him an opportunity to present his views, either orally or in writing, with regard to such contemplated proceeding. Notice shall be served upon such person in the manner provided in § 202.27 of this part. If the person desires to explain the transaction or otherwise to present his views, he shall file with the Director, within 20 days after the service of the notice, an answer, in duplicate, signed by him or by his attorney, or shall request, within the 20 days, an opportunity to express his views orally. The request shall be embodied in a writing signed by the person or by his attorney or agent. Such opportunity to present his views orally shall be afforded at a time and place to be designated by the Director and it shall be given within a time not to exceed 10 days after the date of the filing of the request therefor.
#### In the Matter of Diana McLaughlin, Petitioner, v North Bellmore Union Free School District, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, made February 14, 1978, after a hearing, which found the petitioner guilty of incompetence and dismissed her from her position as a clerk-typist. Petition granted to the extent that the determination is annulled, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the respondent for a new hearing, to be held before a different hearing officer, and a new determination. We believe that, as a matter of propriety and because of his personal involvement, the hearing officer, Dominic Savino, should have disqualified himself from acting with respect to the charges against petitioner (see *Matter of Aiello v Tempera,*65 AD2d 791; *Matter of Waters v McGinnis,*29 AD2d 969; *Matter of Brzezinski v Wiater,*46 AD2d 995). We note that Savino’s involvement with the petitioner’s relationship with her superiors was both long standing and intimate. Thus, in January of 1977, petitioner brought a complaint before Savino concerning her alleged difficulties with the principal of the school where she worked. Savino was the only officer of the respondent whom petitioner had consulted relative to this matter. Moreover, on June 16, 1977, just eight days prior to the announcement of formal charges against her, petitioner, Savino and two of petitioner’s supervisors met together. At this meeting, petitioner was confronted with allegations as to the poor quality of her work. It was suggested that she retire or resign, or that formal charges would be preferred against her. Under the circumstances, Savino should have disqualified himself from acting as hearing officer. His failure to do so deprived petitioner of a fair and impartial hearing. Accordingly, a new hearing must be held before a different hearing officer. In view of the foregoing, we find it unnecessary to pass upon petitioner’s other contentions. Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Mangano and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Douglas Ivory, Also Known as John Ivory, Appellant.

Judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered January 25, 1966, convicting defendant of the sale of narcotics (Penal Law, § 1751, subd. 1) and of possession of narcotics (Penal Law, § 1751-a, subd. 1), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact below have not been considered. In our opinion, it was error for the Trial Judge to refuse the request of defendant for instructions to the jury that “if they believe that the defendant was in fact acting on behalf of the buyer, Paduano, acting on his behalf, then they must acquit him of all charges.” The issue of agency of the defendant was presented to the jury under the evidence in the ease and defendant was entitled to the charge *(People*v. *Lindsey,*16 A D 2d 805, affd. 12 N Y 2d 958; *People*v. *Miller,*24 A D 2d 1023). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

9
2006-0822.

#### State v. Powell.

Montgomery App. No. 20857, 2006-Ohio-263. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1951

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Some of the exhibits referenced in this part 1951 are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Exhibits are available in any Rural Development office.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1951 appear at 80 FR 9890-9894, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1951.243-1951.249 [Reserved]
Exhibit 10.37


 


CLAYTON WILLIAMS ENERGY, INC.


OPTION AGREEMENT


1993 STOCK COMPENSATION PLAN


 




	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Optionee

  	
   

  	
  Date of Grant

  






 


At
the direction of the Compensation Committee appointed by the Board of Directors
of Clayton Williams Energy, Inc. (the “Company”), you are hereby notified that
you have been granted an option pursuant to the 1993 Stock Compensation Plan
(the “Plan”).  The grant of this option
is specifically subject to the terms and conditions of the Plan.


 


The
option granted to you is to purchase                  
shares of the $.10 par value common stock of the Company at a price of $               per
share.  The date of grant of this option
is the date of this Option Agreement.


 


The
option granted to you will expire ten (10) years from the date of grant.


 


A
copy of the Plan and the Prospectus which relates thereto are enclosed for your
information.  To the extent you wish a
copy of the documents incorporated by reference in the enclosed Prospectus,
please contact Paul Latham, the Company’s compliance representative.


 


At
the time or times you wish to exercise this option, in whole or in part, please
refer to the Plan and the Prospectus for the details regarding the formalities
required.


 


	
   

  	
  CLAYTON WILLIAMS ENERGY, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  L.
  Paul Latham

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Executive
  Vice-President

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Acknowledged:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Optionee
  –
Executive Compensation



Exhibit
10.29

 

 

Executive
Compensation

 

 

On
January 12, 2005, the Benefits and Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors approved the following 2005 base salaries and 2004 performance-based
bonuses for the Company’s executive officers. The bonus for 2004 was paid in
early 2005 and was based on the Company’s performance against budgeted net
income for 2004. 

 

 


	
       

      Executive
      Officer
	 	 	
      2005
      Annual

      Base
      Salary
	 	 	
      2004
      Performance-Based Bonus
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
      Joseph
      W. Evans

      Chairman,
      President and Chief Executive Officer
	 	
      $
	
      265,000
	 	
      $
	
      132,500
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
      J.
      Daniel Speight

      Vice
      Chairman, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
	 	
      $
	
      225,000
	 	
      $
	
      112,500
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
      Stephen
      W. Doughty
	 	
      $
	
      225,000
	 	
      $
	
      112,500
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
      J.
      Thomas Wiley, Jr.
	 	
      $
	
      225,000
	 	
      $
	
      112,500
	 



 

    The Committee
also established the Company’s 2005 bonus policy. If specified net income and
deposit growth targets are met and assuming continued satisfactory performance
in the areas of regulatory compliance, risk and operational management and
pursuit of strategic objectives, an initial bonus opportunity of 70% of base
salary will be available to the executives listed above. If net income and
deposit growth for 2005 fall short of budget but are above a 90% “floor” for
payment, each of these executives will receive a portion of his initial bonus
opportunity that represents the percentage of the difference between the “floor”
and budget represented by the actual net income or deposit growth for the year.
For example, if actual net income represents 95% of budget, an executive would
be entitled to receive 50% of his initial 70% bonus opportunity.

 

    An additional
bonus pool was also authorized for these executives and two others (subject to
expansion to include other executives depending on their respective segment’s
performance against budget). The additional bonus pool will consist of 30% of
the amount by which the Company’s net income exceeds budget and will be prorated
among the participating executives based on their respective initial bonus
opportunities.
120 STAT. 310 PUBLIC LAW 109–202—MAR. 20, 2006

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4295:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 151 (2005): Dec. 13, considered and passed House.

Vol. 152 (2006): Mar. 3, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–202

109th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 12760

South Park Avenue in Riverton, Utah, as the ‘‘Mont and Mark Stephensen Veterans Memorial Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

12760 South Park Avenue in Riverton, Utah, shall be known and

designated as the ‘‘Mont and Mark Stephensen Veterans Memorial

Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Mont and

Mark Stephensen Veterans Memorial Post Office Building’’.

Approved March 20, 2006.

Mar. 20, 2006

[H.R. 4295]
#### Unitron Graphics, Inc., Appellant, v Mergenthaler Linotype Company, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 25, 1980, which granted the branch of defendant’s motion for leave to amend its answer to assert the Statute of Limitations, and thereupon, granted the branch of the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, modified, on the law, by reversing so much thereof as granted the branch for summary judgment, by denying that branch of the motion, and, as modified, otherwise affirmed, with costs. This action was commenced on November 21, 1978. The complaint contains two causes of action that sound in breach of warranty and contract. Essentially, the plaintiff seeks damages because the defendant installed rebuilt rather than new equipment under an agreement dated May 8, 1974. The defendant seeks to dismiss the action in chief as time barred under the four-year Statute of Limitations set forth in subdivision (1) of section 2-725 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Upon this record, we find that "tender of delivery” was made under subdivision (2) of section 2-725 of the Uniform Commercial Code when installation was completed. *(Triangle Underwriters v Honeywell, Inc.,*604 F2d 737, 742; *Standard Alliance Inds. v Black Clawson Co.,*587 F2d 813, 818-819, cert den 441 US 923; *Curtis v Murphy Elevator Co.,*407 F Supp 940, 944-945.) Prior to the completion date, the defendant replaced some of the parts that had originally been delivered. It was only after the installation was completed that the plaintff was in a position to determine whether the equipment was rebuilt or new. Thus, the cause for breach of warranty accrued when the installation was completed (Uniform Commercial Code, § 2-725, subd [2]). Similarly, we find that the cause for breach of contract accrued on that same date (Uniform Commercial Code, §2-725, subd [1]). The parties agree that the equipment was delivered on July 26, 1974 and that installation began on August 1, 1974. However, they disagree on the critical date that installment was completed. Plaintiff has submitted an "acceptance form”, signed by defendant’s sales co-ordinator, that suggests that installation was completed on or after December 26, 1974. On the other *784hand, defendant’s divisional credit supervisor has submitted an affidavit and documentation tending to show that installation was completed on or before November 5, 1974. Since a triable issue of fact is presented as to the exact date installment was completed, the branch of defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied. We do not disturb that portion of the order as granted leave to amend the answer. In its papers at Special Term, the plaintiff did not contend that (i) the complaint set forth a basis for recovery in fraud and (ii) the warranty extended to "future performance” under subdivision (2) of section 2-725 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Therefore, these points may not be raised or considered for the first time upon this appeal. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns, Ross and Silverman, JJ.
#### The State ex rel. Iafelice, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Iafelice v.*Indus, *Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 331.]

(No. 96-37

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided October 7, 1998.)

*Alan I. Goodman,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Dennis L. Hufstader,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.

*Licata & Crosby Co., L.P.A., Elizabeth A. Crosby*and *Terence K. O’Brien,*for appellee Owner’s Management Co.

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

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of CEO Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of KapStone Paper and Packaging Corporation for the quarter ended September30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),I, Roger Stone, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of KapStone Paper andPackaging 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:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

Dated: November5, 2007

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Roger Stone                      |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   |   | Roger Stone                          |
|   |   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### § 29.3545 Size.

The length of tobacco leaves. Size does not apply to tobacco in strip form. (See Standard Tobacco Sizes § 29.3591.)

[51 FR 40408, Nov. 7, 1986]
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:98cr47 LAC

THOMAS J. BRELAND, III

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on AUGUST 26 , 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT ORDER ENTERED 

JULY 3, 2008 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on7/29/08 Doc.# 203

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 27

th day of

August, 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-00047-LC-MD Document 204 Filed 08/27/08 Page 1 of 1