alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. 1350 ADOPTED**

 

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the AnnualReport on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 of Naturade, Inc.(the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that theinformation contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company asof, and for, the periods presented in such report.

 

Very truly yours,

 

 

BILL D. STEWART

 
| /s/ Bill D.  Stewart     |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Chief  Executive Officer |

 

 

 

STEPHEN M. KASPRISIN

 
| /s/ Stephen  M. Kasprisin |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Chief  Financial Officer  |

 

Dated:  April 15, 2003

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.”

 

1

----
# CI2021226EN.01000201.xml

| 14.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 226/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 226/2

---

Statement by the European Parliament on Council Decision 2010/427/EU and strategic coordination

(2021/C 226 I/02)

The European Parliament notes that the references to the Union’s external action instruments in Article 9 of Council Decision 2010/427/EU are obsolete, and therefore considers that, for the sake of legal clarity, this Article should be updated, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 27(3) of the Treaty on European Union, in order to take into account the Union external assistance instruments applicable in the period of the 2021-2027 MFF, namely the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument - Global Europe, the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, the European Instrument for International Nuclear Safety Cooperation and the Decision on the Overseas Association, including Greenland.

The European Parliament calls on the Commission and on the European External Action Service (EEAS) to establish a strategic coordination structure composed of all relevant Commission services and of the EEAS in order to ensure coherence, synergy, transparency and accountability in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2021/947 establishing the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument - Global Europe.

---
FILED

COURT OF APPEALS'ON1

"STATE OF WASHINGTON

2017DEC 18 Atill: 18

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON, )

) No. 76560-4-1

Respondent, )

)

v. )

)

DOMINIQUE JAY WARE, )

)

Appellant. )

)

PER CURIAM — Dominique Ware appeals the sentence imposed following

his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm. Ware contends, and the

State concedes, that the State failed to carry its burden of proving that his 2008

conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver did not wash out.

After the State filed its brief conceding error and requesting a remand "to allow

the parties to present any evidence relevant to ensure the accuracy of [Ware's]

criminal history and offender score," Ware moved for accelerated review. Ware

argues that if the State fails to carry its burden of proof on remand, and "[i]f he is

to benefit from a reduction in his sentence, his appeal must be resolved

expeditiously." We accept the State's concession, grant accelerated review, and

remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Remanded.

FOR THE COURT:

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED: DEC 1 8 2017

rt3e-lee4e)
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-07-14T04:14:55-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
§ 3100.46 Responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture. ( a ) Within the Department, the responsibility for the protection of the cultural environment is assigned to the Office of Environmental Quality (OEQ). The Office is responsible for reviewing the development and implementation of agency procedures and insuring Departmental commitment to cultural resource goals.
( b ) The Director of the OEQ is the Secretary's Designee to the ACHP.
( c ) In order to carry out cultural resource responsibilities, there will be professional expertise within the OEQ to advise agencies, aid the Department in meeting its cultural resource management goals, and to insure that all Departmental and agency undertakings comply with applicable cultural resource protection legislation and regulations.
( d ) The OEQ will be involved in individual compliance cases only where resolution cannot be reached at the agency level. Prior to the decision to refer a matter to the full Council of the ACHP, the OEQ will review the case and make recommendations to the Secretary regarding the position of the Department. The agency also will consult with the OEQ before reaching a final decision in response to the Council's comments. Copies of correspondence relevant to compliance with Section 106 shall be made available to OEQ.
RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

2004-0001.

#### Academy of Medicine of Cincinnati v. Aetna Health, Inc.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-030109, C-030110 and C-030111, 155 Ohio App.3d 310, 2003-Ohio-6194. Reported at 108 Ohio St.3d 185, 2006-Ohio-657, 842 N.E.2d 488. On motion for reconsideration of United Healthcare of Ohio, Inc. Motion denied.

Lundberg Stratton and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22

- 50540 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Johnathan Irvin Mckissick,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:21

- CR

- 349

- 1

**_________ _____________________**  Before **Smith, Southwick,** and **Douglas,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Johnathan McKissick pleaded guilty of possessing five grams or more of actual methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)( B ). McKissick was not given a reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility based on his post

- plea conduct while in deten

tion. As a result, his guideline range was 92 to 115 months of imprisonment.

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir . R.**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 6, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-50540 Document: 00516667245 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2023No. 22

- 50540

2 He was sentenced to 115 months plus five years of supervised release. He maintains that the district court erred by denying him a reduction for accep

tance of responsibility.
“A district court’s refu sal to reduce a sentence for acceptance of respon sibility is reviewed under a standard even more deferential than a pure clearly erroneous standard.” United States v. Najera , 915 F.3d 997, 1002 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitt ed). We will not reverse the d e cision to deny such a reduction unless i t is “without founda

tion.” United States v. Juarez

- Duarte , 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008). The record does not demonstrate that the decision to deny a § 3E1.1 reduction

— based on M cKissick ’s assaulting a fellow inmate while in detention

— was “without foundation.” Id. “The defendant bears the bur

den of demonstrating that the information relied upon by the district court in sentencing is materially untrue.” United States v. Ramirez , 367 F.3d 274, 277 (5th Cir. 2014). T he court was entitled to rely on the information about the assault recorded in the PSR , given that it bore sufficient indic i a of reliability because it was based on video recordings and statements of those present

. See United States v. Harris , 702 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2012). McKissick offered no evidence to rebut the disputed in formation; thus, he did not meet his burden to show that the district court relied on inaccurate or materially untrue information. See United States v. Alaniz , 726 F.3d 586, 619 (5th Cir. 2013). Accordingly , the court did not reversibly err by denying Mc Kissick a § 3E1.1 reduction for acceptance of responsibility. See Najera , 915 F.3d
at 1002.
**AFFIRMED**

. Case: 22-50540 Document: 00516667245 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/06/2023
###### Editorial Note on Part 3406

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3406 appear at 76 FR 4809, Jan. 27, 2011.

#### § 3406.7 General scope of program.

This program supports both teaching project grants and research project grants. Such grants are intended to strengthen the teaching and research capabilities of applicant institutions. Each 1890 Institution may submit one or more grant applications for either category of grants (as allowed by the annual program notice). However, each application must be limited to either a teaching project grant proposal or a research project grant proposal.
Exhibit 10.27




EXHIBIT
10.27




DESCRIPTION
OF GENVEC, INC. 2005 ANNUAL BONUS CRITERIA

AND
2004 ANNUAL BONUSES TO EXECUTIVE OFFICERS







As
reported in the Registrant’s Definitive Proxy Statement, dated April 27, 2004,
under the caption, “Compensation Committee Report,” all employees, including
named executive officers, are eligible for annual bonuses. The bonus for all
employees and executive officers, except for the President and Chief Executive
Officer, is based on the achievement of pre-determined (i) individual goals and
(ii) corporate goals. Each year, a maximum bonus pool is set aside for possible
distribution as bonuses in the first quarter of the next fiscal year.


 

2005
annual bonuses will be determined by the achievement of both individual goals
and corporate goals, each of which will be given 50% weight in determining the
annual bonus. Based upon individual performance and accomplishments, the
Compensation Committee will award discretionary bonuses that fall within ranges
established by the Compensation Committee at the start of the year. Such ranges
are based on a range of percentages of employee’s salary, with those with higher
salary grades being eligible for a higher percentage of their salary to be paid
as a bonus. Individual goals are established for each employee subsequently
evaluated in each individual’s performance review. Corporate goals for 2005
relate to financing activities, progress in product development programs, the
establishment of new strategic alliances, and other business development
initiatives. Certain of these goals carry a higher weighting than others. The
bonus for the President and Chief Executive Officer is determined exclusively by
satisfaction of the corporate goals.




The
Compensation Committee has approved bonuses for 2004 and awarded the following
bonus payments in the first quarter of 2005 to the Company’s named executive
officers:


 


	 Name
      and Prinicpal Position	
       2004
      Bonus Payment

	 	 
	 Paul
      H. Fischer, Ph.D.	
       $64,014

	 CEO
      and President	 
	 	 
	 Jeffrey
      W. Church	
       $28,659

	 CFO, 
      Treasurer and Corporate Secretary	 
	 	 
	 E.
      Michael Egan	
       $29,391

	 Senior
      Vice President, Commercial Development	 
	 	 
	 C.
      Richter King, Ph.D.	
       $37,318

	 Senior
      Vice President, Research
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

LEE CUMMINGS

ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND

OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5412-MCR-MJF

KNOWLES ON SITE REPAIR INC, et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER

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

Recommendation dated November 4, 2021. ECF No. 68. The parties have been 

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an 

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 

636(b)(1). There are no timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the record, 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. Defendants’ “Motion for Sanctions,” ECF No. 61, is GRANTED.

Case 3:20-cv-05412-MCR-MJF Document 71 Filed 12/03/21 Page 1 of 2
3. Plaintiff Jeremy Byrd’s and Alexxander Taylor’s opt-in consents, ECF 

Nos. 17, 41, are struck and their claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.

4. Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees is GRANTED. Within SEVEN 

(7) DAYS of this Order, Defendants shall confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel to see if 

they can agree on the amount of attorney’s fees that should be awarded and, within 

FOURTEEN (14) DAYS, file an accounting of the attorney’s fees incurred in 

preparing and filing their motion for sanctions or a notice that the parties have agreed 

on the appropriate amount.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of December 2021.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05412-MCR-MJF Document 71 Filed 12/03/21 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON , D.C

. 20460 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION



### MEMORANDUM Date: 7/2/2014 Subject: Quizalofop ethyl. Harmonization of the US Tol erance and Canadian MRL for Sunflowers.

PC Codes: 128711 (quizalofop ethyl) and 1287 09 (quiza1ofop -P- ethy 1 , pe sticidally active isomer) Decision No.: 492762 Petition No.: NA Risk Assessment Type: NA TXRNo

. : NA MRIDNo.: NA DP Barcode: 042 131 5
Registration No.: NA Regulatory Action: Reg Review Case No.: NA CAS No

. : 100646-51-3 40 CFR: § 180.441


### FROM: Jdeliz Negron-Encarnacion, Ph.D. , Chemist

# ~7*' Risk Asses sment Branch V Health Eff ects Division (7509P) Office of Pesticide Programs 

### THROUGH: Michael Metzger, Branch Chief Risk Assessment Branch VNII Health Effects Division (7509P) Office of Pesticide Program s 

### TO: Khue Nguyen, Chemical Review Manager Risk Management and Implementation Branch 1 Pesticide Re- Evaluation Division (7508P)

This memo was prepared to document the Health Effects Division tolerance recommendation based on the new Canadian maximum residue limit for sunflowers. In addition, the international harmonization section was edited.

Page 1 of2International Harmonization The international residue limits discussion for quizalofop ethyl is included in the residue chemistry chapter (0371923 , I. Negron, 12 /4/2012) and in the risk assessment (D394192 , D. Drew, 12/ 11120 12). In these document a revised tolerance for sunflower seeds was proposed. The maximum residue limit (MRL) established by the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) for quizalofop on sunflower was changed to 3 ppm in March 2014. During registration review an increase in the US tolerance to 2 ppm was recommended. For harmonization ofthe PMRA MRL and US tolerance level it is recommended that the US tolerance is increased to 3 ppm. In addition, HED would like to correct a word under the international harmonization section. The following sentence included in the previously mentioned documents should read as: "Harmonization is not possible for dry beans and edible podded beans since the US tolerance is higher than the Canadian MRL. "

Page 2 of2
98-1207.

#### State ex rel. Williams v. Mengel.

In Mandamus and Procedendo. Reported at 83 Ohio St.3d 1409, 698 N.E.2d 434. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
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 Lightwave Logic, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Andrew Ashton, Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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.

Date: May 20, 2008


         /s/ Andrew J. Ashton
         ---------------------------------
         Andrew Ashton, Treasurer
         Lightwave Logic, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000793934
<NAME>                                              PS PARTNERS VIII, LTD.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                            1
<CURRENCY>                                                         U.S. $

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                                 JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                  DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                         1
<CASH>                                                            249,000
<SECURITIES>                                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                      11,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  260,000
<PP&E>                                                         17,246,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                (5,081,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 17,590,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             344,000
<BONDS>                                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                                             0
<COMMON>                                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                                     17,246,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   17,590,000
<SALES>                                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                2,811,000
<CGS>                                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     821,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  632,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 1,358,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             1,358,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                         0
<CHANGES>                                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    1,358,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                       22.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       22.48


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2





Certification
of Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant
to


Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010 (the “Report”) of ATS Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Pamela A.
Little, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify
that:





(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 the
Registrant.





Date:
      August 3, 2010
                By:
                /s/ Pamela A. LittlePamela
      A. LittleExecutive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)
2005-2143.

#### Sycamore Community School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2003-T-2131. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals. Upon consideration of the parties’ joint motion to remand this cause to the Board of Tax Appeals,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is granted and this cause is remanded to the Board of Tax Appeals to implement the settlement agreement of the parties.
98- 552.

#### State v. Smith.

Lucas App. No. L-94-093. On motion for leave to supplement record. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

RODNEY SHEFFIELD,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20-cv-64-AW-GRJ

OFFICER SULLIVAN, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The magistrate judge’s April 21, 2020 report and recommendation (ECF No. 

4)—to which no objections were filed—is adopted and incorporated by reference in 

this Order. This case is dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and failure 

to prosecute. The clerk will close the file.

SO ORDERED on May 25, 2020.

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00064-AW-GRJ Document 5 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 1
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 Lightwave Logic, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew Ashton, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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.



Date: November 14, 2008



/s/ Andrew J. Ashton

Andrew Ashton,

Principal Financial Officer

Lightwave Logic, Inc.