alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
3  CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT  I, Ronald A. Brenneman, certify that:  1.I
have reviewed this annual report  on
Form 40-F of Petro-Canada;  2.Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3.Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;  4.The
issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the issuer and have:  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 issuer, 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)evaluated
the effectiveness of the issuer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; and  c)disclosed
in this report any change in the issuers internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report  that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal control over
financial reporting; and  5.The
issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers
auditors and the audit committee of the issuers board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):  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 issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and  b)any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the issuers control over financial reporting.  Date: March 25, 2004/s/ Ronald A. BrennemanRonald A. BrennemanPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### § 301.52-8 Inspection and disposal of regulated articles and pests.

Any properly identified inspector is authorized to stop and inspect, and to seize, destroy, or otherwise dispose of, or require disposal of regulated articles and pink bollworms as provided sections 414, 421, and 434 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7714, 7731, and 7754), in accordance with instructions issued by the Deputy Administrator.

[32 FR 16385, Nov. 30, 1967, as amended at 66 FR 21051, Apr. 27, 2001]
Page 1 of 3

Consolidated Case No. 4:19cv236-RH-MJF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

KIRK NIELSEN et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CONSOLIDATED

v. CASE NO. 4:20cv236-RH-MJF

RON DESANTIS et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________________________/

ORDER ALLOWING REPUBLICAN 

ORGANIZATIONS TO INTERVENE

This case presents a challenge to Florida voting procedures. The defendants 

are state and county officials. Three organizations affiliated with the Republican 

Party have moved for leave to intervene as defendants either as a matter of right 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) or permissibly under Rule 24(b). 

The plaintiffs oppose the motion. They assert the proposed intervenors’ 

interests are adequately represented by the existing defendants, an assertion that, if 

accepted, would be fatal, under the circumstances of this case, to intervention as of 

right under Rule 24(a). The plaintiffs assert permissive intervention under Rule 

24(b) should be denied because, among other things, the proposed intervention 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 101 Filed 05/28/20 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Consolidated Case No: 4:20cv236-RH-MJF

would delay the litigation without adding anything of value—that is, without 

providing input that will improve the quality of decision-making.

Permissive intervention is committed to the district court’s discretion. See, 

e.g., Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197, 1215 (11th Cir. 1989); League of 

Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner, 283 F.R.D. 687 (N.D. Fla. 2012). Here, it cannot 

be said with assurance that the existing parties will frame the issues so well that the 

proposed intervention will add nothing of value. Even good lawyers sometimes 

miss things. So do judges. These proposed intervenors are not marginally affected 

individuals; they are substantial organizations with experienced attorneys who 

might well bring perspective that others miss or choose not to provide.

Delay can be avoided through good case management. The intervenors 

should expect to comply with the schedule that would be followed in their 

absence—an approach consistent with the position they have taken to date.

As a matter of discretion, this order grants permissive intervention under 

Rule 24(b).

IT IS ORDERED:

The motion for leave to intervene, ECF No. 53, is granted. These parties are 

added as defendants: the Republican National Committee, the National Republican 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 101 Filed 05/28/20 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Consolidated Case No: 4:20cv236-RH-MJF

Congressional Committee, and the Republican Party of Florida.

SO ORDERED on May 28, 2020.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 101 Filed 05/28/20 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS

ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Barry Hollingsworth, Chief Financial Officer of The Parent 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
Parent Company s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 3, 2008 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 Parent Company.

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 17th day of June 2008.



/s/ Barry HollingsworthBarry HollingsworthChief Financial Officer
#### § 301.81-6 Compliance agreements.
-->

Persons who grow, handle, or move regulated articles interstate may enter into a compliance agreement[1] if such persons review with an inspector each stipulation of the compliance agreement, have facilities and equipment to carry out disinfestation procedures or application of chemical materials in accordance with part 305 of this chapter, and meet applicable State training and certification standards as authorized by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (86 Stat. 983; 7 U.S.C. 136b). Any person who enters into a compliance agreement with APHIS must agree to comply with the provisions of this subpart and any conditions imposed under this subpart.

[57 FR 57327, Dec. 4, 1992, as amended at 59 FR 67609, Dec. 30, 1994; 75 FR 4240, Jan. 26, 2010; 87 FR 80013, Dec. 29, 2022]

###### Footnotes -
  301.81-6

[1] Compliance agreements may be initiated by contacting a local office of Plant Protection and Quarantine, which are listed in telephone directories. The addresses and telephone numbers of local offices of Plant Protection and Quarantine may also be obtained from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Domestic and Emergency Operations, 4700 River Road Unit 134, Riverdale, Maryland 20737-1236.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

OF QUINTANA MARITIME LIMITED

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended
June 30, 2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stamatis V. Molaris, Chief Executive Officer of Quintana Maritime Limited (the Company), hereby certify, to my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) as applicable, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Stamatis V. MolarisStamatis V. MolarisChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


Date: August 9, 2007
§ 3201.104 Metal cleaners and corrosion removers. ( a ) *Definition.* ( 1 ) Products that are designed to clean and remove grease, oil, dirt, stains, soils, and rust from metal surfaces.
( 2 ) Metal cleaners and corrosion removers for which Federal preferred procurement applies are: ( i ) *Corrosion removers.* Products that are designed to remove rust from metal surfaces through chemical action.
( ii ) *Stainless steel cleaners.* Products that are designed to clean and remove grease, oil, dirt, stains, and soils from stainless steel surfaces.
( iii ) *Other metal cleaners.* Products that are designed to clean and remove grease, oil, dirt, stains, and soils from metal surfaces other than stainless steel.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The minimum biobased content for all metal cleaners and corrosion removers shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product. The applicable minimum biobased contents for the Federal preferred procurement products are: ( 1 ) *Corrosion removers* —71 percent.
( 2 ) *Stainless steel cleaners* —75 percent.
( 3 ) *Other metal cleaners* —56 percent.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than June 11, 2014, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased metal cleaners and corrosion removers. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for products to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased metal cleaners and corrosion removers.
[78 FR 34872, June 11, 2013]
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-30644

Summary Calendar

 

LAWRENCE OZEL LITTLE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHARLES R. ROWE; JERRY A.

WHITTINGTON; RUTH COX;

VICTOR SIZEMORE,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CV-238

May 11, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lawrence Ozel Little, federal prisoner # 53017-0800, argues

that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his

complaint as frivolous based on its being prescribed under

Louisiana law. 

Little’s complaint did not raise a federal question and,

thus, the district court’s jurisdiction was based on diversity 

because the parties are domiciled in different states and the

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. 
2

§ 1332(a)(1). Therefore, the Louisiana law of prescription was

properly applied in the case. 

Under Louisiana law, Little was required to file an action

for legal malpractice or fraud within one year of the alleged act

of malpractice or within one year of the date that the alleged

act of malpractice or fraud is discovered or should have been

discovered. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 9:5605 (West 1999); Broussard v.

Toce, 746 So. 2d 659, 662 (La. Ct. App. 1999). 

Little was in possession of facts more than one year prior

to the date that he filed his complaint which made him aware or

should have made him aware of the fact that the defendants had

engaged in legal malpractice and/or fraud. The district court

did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint as

frivolous based on the time-bar. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i);

See Gonzales v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir. 1998).

Little has not argued on appeal that the district court

erred in denying his motion to amend his complaint to raise

constitutional claims. Therefore, this claim is deemed

abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,

813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Little has failed to raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. 

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir.

R. 42.2. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
§ 2903.4 Indirect costs. ( a ) For the Biodiesel Fuel Education Program, applicants should use the current indirect cost rate negotiated with the cognizant Federal negotiating agency. Indirect costs may not exceed the negotiated rate. If no indirect cost rate has been negotiated, a reasonable dollar amount for indirect costs may be requested, which will be subject to approval by USDA. In the latter case, if a proposal is recommended for funding, an indirect cost rate proposal must be submitted prior to award to support the amount of indirect costs requested.
( b ) A proposer may elect not to charge indirect costs and, instead, charge only direct costs to grant funds. Grantees electing this alternative will not be allowed to charge, as direct costs, indirect costs that otherwise would be in the grantee's indirect cost pool under the applicable Office of Management and Budget cost principles. Grantees who request no indirect costs will not be permitted to revise their budgets at a later date to charge indirect costs to grant funds.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information taken from the balance
sheet as of June 30, 1997 and the statement of operations for the twelve-month
period ended June 30, 1997, and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                          6,368,228
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                   3,055,309
<ALLOWANCES>                      230,000   
<INVENTORY>                         4,278
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                9,428,290 
<PP&E>                            758,161
<DEPRECIATION>                    726,877
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 15,757,861
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,621,084
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                          268,850
<OTHER-SE>                     11,476,857
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   15,757,861
<SALES>                           620,180
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               15,940,549
<CGS>                             320,749
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   2,103,305
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                13,837,244         
<INCOME-TAX>                    1,491,290  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            12,345,954    
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                   12,345,954         
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                         .42
        

</TABLE>
#### The State ex rel. Vansuch, Appellee, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellant.

[Cite as *State ex rel Vansuch v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 558.]

(No. 96-957

Submitted September 29, 1998

Decided November 10, 1998.)

*559
      *Elliott, Heller, Maas, Moro & Magill Co., L.P.A.,*and *C. Douglas Ames,*for • appellee.

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

*Per Curiam.*

The issue presented today was decided previously in *State ex rel. Liposchak v. Indus. Comm.*(1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 194, 652 N.E.2d 753. We find that the court of appeals correctly applied *Liposchak*in this case, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of that court.

*Judgment affirmed.*

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

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, J., dissent.

*560Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting. I respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in Justice Cook’s dissenting opinion in *State ex rel. Liposchak v. Indus. Comm.*(1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 194, 196-197, 652 N.E.2d 753, 755-756. This claimant is not eligible for benefits for permanent total disability (“PTD”) according to this court’s guidelines in *State ex rel. Baker Material Handling Corp. v. Indus. Comm.*(1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 202, 631 N.E.2d 138, paragraph two of the syllabus. Vansuch voluntarily retired from the workforce more than ten years prior to his application for PTD benefits and never reentered the job market. While he may have a valid medical reason for seeking PTD benefits, he has abandoned the job market and therefore has no loss of future wages. Thus, he has no basis for receiving PTD benefits. See *State ex rel. Liposchak,*73 Ohio St.3d at 197, 652 N.E.2d at 756 (Cook, J., dissenting).

Moyer, C.J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

TIMOTHY W. COFFELL,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20cv109-TKW-HTC 

WASHINGTON COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

/

OR D E R

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

Recommendation (Doc. 6). No objections were filed.1 Having reviewed the Report 

and Recommendation and the case file, I agree with the magistrate judge’s 

determination that this case should be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to pay 

the filing fee, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to prosecute.

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 file.

1

 It does not appear that Plaintiff received the Report and Recommendation because the copy mailed to him at 

his address of record was returned as undeliverable by the postal service. See Doc. 7. That does not preclude the 

Court from entering this Order because, as noted in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s failure to keep the 

Court apprised of his current address is tantamount to a failure to prosecute.

Case 5:20-cv-00109-TKW-HTC Document 8 Filed 06/22/20 Page 1 of 2
2

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 2020.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00109-TKW-HTC Document 8 Filed 06/22/20 Page 2 of 2
Prepared and filed by St Ives Burrups





Exhibit 10.27

Description of Compensation Arrangement with respect to Named Executive Officers

The following sets forth the annual
    rate at which the specified named executive officers (as defined in Regulation
    S-K Item 402(a)(3)) will be paid in 2005 and the cash bonus each was awarded
    for the fiscal year 2004 as approved by the Compensation Committee of the
Board of Directors of Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

	  Name	
Title
	2005 Salary	Cash Bonus
	  Paul J. Maddon, M.D., Ph.D.	Chief Executive Officer and Chief Science Officer
	      $536,785	      $150,000 
	  Robert J. Israel, M.D.	Senior Vice President, Medical Affairs
	  312,000	    50,000
	  Robert A. McKinney	Chief Financial Officer, Vice President, Finance and Operations and Treasurer
	  230,000	    60,000
	  Ronald J. Prentki(1)	President and Director
	  385,650	    75,000


(1) Mr. Prentki notified the Registrant of his resignation, effective March 25, 2005, as President of the Registrant.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 4:03-CR-20-SPM

MICHAEL WALLACE,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DIRECTING GOVERNMENT TO FILE WRITTEN RESPONSE

TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONSIDER RELIEF UNDER RULE 35(b)

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the “Complaint for Breach of

Contract” (doc. 61) filed by Defendant July 21, 2006, in which Defendant alleges

that the Government promised it would file a motion for reduction of sentence

pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b). Defendant outlines the

assistance he provided and alleges that the Government has failed to keep its

end of the bargain.

It appears from the record that Defendant has been requesting relief for

some time now. In March of 2006, Defendant requested the Court’s assistance

in obtaining Rule 35 relief (doc. 59 at 2). The Court responded, explaining that

while the decision to file a Rule 35 lay solely within the Government’s discretion,

Case 4:03-cr-00020-SPM-AK Document 62 Filed 07/24/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

it would forward Defendant’s correspondence for appropriate action (doc. 59 at

4). On March 27, 2006, the Court sent Defendant’s letter to Assistant United

States Attorney Michael Simpson and defense attorney James Banks, asking

them to review and take action as necessary (doc. 59 at 5).

Apparently no action was ever taken, prompting Defendant to file the

instant motion to compel. Having examined the motion, the Court finds that a

response is warranted by the Government. Thus, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Government is directed to file a written response to the motion

on or before August 4, 2006 and discuss whether Defendant is 

entitled to relief.

2. Alternatively, the Government may file a motion pursuant to Rule

35 on or before August 4, 2006.

3. Defendant shall file a reply to the response on or before August

11, 2006.

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

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cr-00020-SPM-AK Document 62 Filed 07/24/06 Page 2 of 2
#### In re LAWLOR’S ESTATE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 15, 1906.)

In the matter of the probate of the last will and testament of Anna Eliza (MeCreedon) Lawlor, deceased.

No opinion. Motion to 'dismiss appeal granted.