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


CERTIFICATION
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of PDC 2005-A Limited Partnership (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
the undersigned certify 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) 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
      Registrant.
 
 /s/
      Richard W. McCullough
              
              November
      13, 2009Richard
      W. McCulloughChief
      Executive OfficerPetroleum
      Development CorporationManaging
      General Partner/s/
      Gysle R. Shellum
              
              November
      13, 2009Gysle
      R. ShellumChief
      Financial OfficerPetroleum
      Development CorporationManaging
      General Partner
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or 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 by the Registrant and will be retained by the
Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 4:96cr76-RH

vs. Case No. 4:05cv158-RH/WCS

JOE TRAVIS,

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON § 2255 MOTION

Defendant has filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Doc. 191. 

The court previously denied § 2255 relief to this Defendant, and denial was

affirmed on appeal. Docs. 154, 156, and 168. Defendant's motion to dismiss the

indictment and motion to withdraw the plea were dismissed as unauthorized second or

successive motions under § 2255. Docs. 171 (order deeming motions unauthorized

and also finding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on the merits) and 184

(Eleventh Circuit order vacating and remanding with instructions that the motions be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as authorization had not been granted for filing a

Case 4:96-cr-00076-RH-WCS Document 192 Filed 05/20/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

1

 The docket does not reflect that the order of remand was ever referred to the

district judge for compliance with the instructions. 

Case Nos. 4:96cr76-RH and 4:05cv158-RH/WCS

second or successive motion).1 Another § 2255 motion was summarily dismissed as a

second or successive motion, as authorization for filing had not been granted by the

court of appeals. Docs. 188, 189 and 190. 

Again Defendant has not obtained authorization from the court of appeals, and

again this court may not consider his second or successive motion. § 2255 (referencing

§ 2244); § 2255 Rule 9 (party must obtain authorization from court of appeals before

presenting a second or successive motion). See also In re Anderson, 396 F.3d 1336,

1339-40 (11th Cir. 2005) (denying leave to file second or successive § 2255 motion

raising a claim under United States v. Booker, U.S. , 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d

621 (2005) and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. , 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403

(2004)).

It is therefore respectfully RECOMMENDED that the § 2255 motion (doc. 191) be

SUMMARILY DISMISSED.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on May 20, 2005.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 10

days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections

limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case 4:96-cr-00076-RH-WCS Document 192 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q/A of 155 East Tropicana, LLC, a Nevada limited-liability company and155 East Tropicana Finance Corp., a Nevada corporation (collectively, the “Company”)for the three months ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities andExchange q Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Neil G. Kiefer, asPresident and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Neil G. Kiefer                    |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Neil G. Kiefer,                       |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| August 21, 2006                       |

 

 

The foregoing certifications are being furnished solely pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350 and are not being filed as part of the Report or as a separatedisclosure document.

----
Editorial Note on Part 3400
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3400 appear at 76 FR 4806, Jan. 27, 2011.

§ 3400.23 Annual reports. ( a ) *Reporting requirement.* The recipient shall submit an annual report describing the results of the research, extension, or education activity and the merit of the results.
( b ) *Report type and content.* Unless otherwise stipulated, grant recipients will have met the reporting requirement under this subpart by complying with the reporting requirements as set forth in the terms and conditions of the grant at the time of award.
[64 FR 34104, June 24, 1999]
Summary Description of Annual Executive Incentive Compensation Program



 EXHIBIT 10.32 
  
 SunGard Data Systems Inc. 
 Summary Description of the Company’s 
 Annual Executive Incentive Compensation Program 
  
  
 SunGard Data
Systems Inc. has an annual executive incentive compensation (“EIC”) program for its executive officers and other key management employees. The principal purpose of this program is to link a significant portion of annual cash compensation
to financial results and other goals, so as to reward successful performance. 
  
 Each participant’s EIC program contains certain financial and/or business goals as targets. These targets are established at the beginning of each year and take into account the Company’s overall financial and business goals for
the year. The performance goals for executive officers are based primarily upon either targeted rates of increase in the Company’s earnings per share over the previous year or budgeted operating income of the business units that report to the
officer. Sometimes, there are additional performance goals specific to the officer’s function. For other key management employees, the targets are based upon financial and/or business goals related to the business units they manage and,
sometimes, additional performance goals specific to their individual functions. 
  
 Generally, the EIC programs contain an incentive compensation amount related to each target. If the target is achieved, then the related incentive compensation amount is earned. For most financial goals, there are three to four designated
targets. If the actual result is less than the minimum target, then no incentive amount is earned. If the actual result is between two targets, then the incentive amount earned is calculated by interpolation. If the actual result is more than the
maximum target, then the incentive amount earned is equal to the amount related to the maximum target plus, in some cases, an additional incentive amount based upon the extent to which the maximum target was exceeded.
#### WISE et al., Respondents, v. COHEN et al., Appellants (two cases).

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 25, 1906.)

Actions by John S. Wise and others against Pauline Cohen, impleaded.

No opinion. Motion denied. Order filed.
109TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2363

AN ACT

To extend the educational flexibility program under section

4 of the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999.

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

2

S 2363 ES

1 SECTION 1. EDUCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY PROGRAM EXTEN2 SION.

3 (a) EXTENSION AUTHORITY.—Notwithstanding any

4 other provision of law, the Secretary of Education is au5 thorized to carry out the educational flexibility program

6 under section 4 of the Education Flexibility Partnership

7 Act of 1999 (20 U.S.C. 5891b), until the date of enact8 ment of an Act that reauthorizes programs under part A

9 of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

10 of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.), for any State that was

11 an Ed-Flex Partnership State on September 30, 2004.

12 (b) DESIGNATION.—

13 (1) IN GENERAL.—Any designation of a State

14 as an Ed-Flex Partnership State that was in effect

15 on September 30, 2004, shall be extended until the

16 date of enactment of an Act that reauthorizes pro17 grams under part A of title I of the Elementary and

18 Secondary Education Act of 1965, if the Secretary

19 of Education makes the determination described in

20 paragraph (2).

21 (2) DETERMINATION.—The determination re22 ferred to in paragraph (1) is a determination that

23 the performance of the State educational agency, in

24 carrying out the programs for which the State has
†

3

S 2363 ES

1 received a waiver under the educational flexibility

2 program, justifies the extension of the designation.

Passed the Senate March 2, 2006.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2363

AN ACT

To extend the educational flexibility program under

Act of 1999.section 4 of the Education Flexibility Partnership
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roy Hale, Jr., Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered January 10, 1979, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Defendant, the driver of an automobile, was stopped by the police for having nonoperative tail lights and asked to produce his license, registration and insurance identification card. Having located and produced his license and registration, defendant then asked a passenger who had alighted from the automobile to return to the car to retrieve the insurance card from the glove compartment. As the passenger complied with defendant’s request, a police officer who had accompanied him to the car shined his flashlight inside and observed that the glove compartment contained a bolstered gun. Defendant and the other occupants of the car were immediately arrested and charged with criminal possession of the weapon. Defendant now argues that his motion to suppress should have been granted because the gun came into plain view during the course of an unlawful detention. He asserts that the police had no right, where there had been no accident, to require production of an insurance identification card after defendant had already produced a valid license and registration. We disagree. A New York motorist is required to carry an insurance identification card whenever operating a motor *607vehicle and to produce it upon request of any police officer (see Vehicle and Traffic Law,§ 319, subd 3; 15 NYCRR 32.12), and this duty is not negated by the production of a valid license and registration. The purpose of this requirement is to insure that the highways of the State are utilized by insured vehicles. Since the defendant’s car was lawfully stopped, the intrusion with the flashlight into the car and the seizure of the gun under the plain view doctrine were both justified (cf. *People v Singleton,*41 NY2d 402; *People v Cruz,*34 NY2d 362; *People v Miller,*52 AD2d 425). Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Gulotta, JJ., concur.
#### § 29.3072 Undried.

The condition of unfermented tobacco which has not been air-dried or steam-dried.

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959. Redesignated at 47 FR 51722, Nov. 17, 1982, 49 FR 16758, Apr. 20, 1984, and 51 FR 40407, Nov. 7, 1986]
§ 301.91-8 Attachment and disposition of certificates and limited permits. ( a ) A certificate or limited permit required for the interstate movement of a regulated article, at all times during such movement, shall be securely attached to the outside of the containers containing the regulated article, securely attached to the article itself if not in a container, or securely attached to the consignee's copy of the accompanying waybill or other shipping document; *Provided, however,* That the requirements of this section may be met by attaching the certificate or limited permit to the consignee's copy of the waybill or other shipping documents only if the regulated article is sufficiently described on the certificate, limited permit, or shipping document to identify such article.
( b ) The certificate or limited permit for the movement of a regulated article shall be furnished by the carrier to the consignee at the destination of the shipment.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

FREDERICK J. SCHMIDT,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5594-MCR-HTC

DIRECTOR/CHIEF ESMOND,

CORRECTIONS OFFICER ROLLER,

MEDICAL AT OCJ CORIZON 

HEALTH SERVICES, DR. DELGATO,

Defendants.

/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated August 3, 2020, ECF No. 5, which recommends this case be 

dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's abuse of the judicial process and because 

he is a three-striker under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff filed an objection. ECF 

No. 6. 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff’s objection,

I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Case 3:20-cv-05594-MCR-HTC Document 7 Filed 08/28/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5594-MCR-HTC

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

(1)The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 5, is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

(2) This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff's abuse 

of the judicial process and because he is a three-striker under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g).

(3)The Clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of August 2020.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05594-MCR-HTC Document 7 Filed 08/28/20 Page 2 of 2
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Guillermo Puente v. Alic ia Marie Puente

Ap pellate case number: 01

- 1 8

- 00 583

- C V

Trial court case number: 2018

- 34059

Trial court: 280 th District Co urt of Harris Cou n ty

Guil lermo Puent e has filed a Motion to Remove Filings From Website, in which he

requests that “ all fili ngs made in the above styled cause nu mber be removed from the website. ”

His motion is DISMISSED because this court lack s jurisdiction to hear mot ion s in this appeal

due to the expiration of t he court ’ s plenary p ower. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 19 .1 (a) , 19.3

.

Justice’s signature: /s/ Gordon Goodman

Acting indivi dual ly

Panel con sists of : Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Countiss

.

Date: Marc h 12 , 20 20
#### § 319.8-4 Notice of arrival.

Immediately upon arrival at a port of entry of any shipment of cotton or covers, the importer shall submit to an inspector or, in the case of Guam, through the Customs officer of the Government of Guam, notice of such arrival using a form provided for that purpose (Form PPQ-368). Forms will be submitted using a U.S. Government electronic information exchange system or other authorized method.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0049)

[81 FR 40150, June 21, 2016]
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lightwave Logic, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Andrew J. Ashton, Treasurer of our Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 result of operations of our Company.



Date:  November 13, 2009

/s/ Andrew J. Ashton

Andrew J. Ashton

Treasurer

(Principal Financial Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 71155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29475]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, November 
23, 2010 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the 
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Paredes, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session, and determined that 
no earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, 
November 23, 2010 will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: November 18, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29475 Filed 11-18-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
§ 3430.303 Eligibility. ( a ) *General.* Unless otherwise specified in the RFA or this subpart, eligible applicants for the grant program implemented under this subpart include: ( 1 ) State agricultural experiment stations;
( 2 ) Colleges and universities (including junior colleges offering an associate's degree);
( 3 ) University research foundations;
( 4 ) Other research institutions and organizations;
( 5 ) Federal agencies;
( 6 ) National laboratories;
( 7 ) Private organizations or corporations;
( 8 ) Individuals; and
( 9 ) Any group consisting of 2 or more entities identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this section.
( b ) *Integrated projects.* Eligible entities for the integrated component under this subpart include: ( 1 ) Colleges and universities;
( 2 ) 1994 Institutions; and
( 3 ) Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and universities (as defined in section 1404 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3103).
( c ) *FASE Grants* — ( 1 ) *New investigator awards.* To be eligible to apply, a new investigator must be in the beginning of his/her career, without an extensive publication record, and must have less than 5 years of postgraduate, career-track experience. To be eligible to receive a grant, the new investigator may not have received competitively awarded Federal funds, with the exception of pre- or postdoctoral awards or NRI/AFRI Seed Grants. The AFRI RFA will contain specific instructions for New Investigator Grant eligibility, restrictions, and application preparation.
( 2 ) *Pre- and postdoctoral fellowships.* The following eligibility requirements apply to applicants for pre- and postdoctoral fellowships. ( i ) The doctoral degree of the applicant must be received not earlier than January 1 of the calendar year three years prior to the submission of the proposal and not later than nine months after the proposal due date; and
( ii ) For pre-doctoral applications, the applicant must have advanced to candidacy by the application deadline.
( 3 ) *Strengthening grants.* Eligibility for all strengthening categories includes: ( i ) Small and mid-sized academic institutions that have had limited institutional success;
( ii ) Degree-granting institutions and State agricultural experiment stations (SAES) in USDA Experimental Program for Stimulating Competitive Research (EPSCoR) states; and
( iii ) Minority-serving institutions with limited institutional success.