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





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 Sputnik Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates
indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
knowledge:





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





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





/s/ David
LaDuke


Name:     David
LaDuke


Title:       President,
Chief Executive Officer, and


Treasurer








May 1,
2009











A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Sputnik Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Sputnik Enterprises, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
§ 500.3 Preservation of property. ( a ) While at the USNA, it is unlawful to: ( 1 ) Willfully destroy, damage, or remove USNA property or any part thereof;
( 2 ) Set or maintain any open fire on the property of the USNA; however, the use of small candles may be approved at the discretion of the Director, USNA; or
( 3 ) Apply any type of insecticide or herbicide on the grounds of the USNA, except for USNA employees in the course of their official duties or other persons authorized by the Director, USNA.
( b ) Persons not employed by USNA are not permitted to bring biological agents of any kind, including but not limited to disease and pest agents of plants, onto the property without written permission of the Director, USNA.
§ 4280.102 Organization of subpart. ( a ) Sections 4280.103 through 4280.111 discuss definitions; exception authority; review or appeal rights; conflict of interest; USDA Departmental Regulations; other applicable laws; ineligible applicants, grantees, and owners; general applicant, application, and funding provisions; and notifications, which are applicable to all of the funding programs under this subpart.
( b ) Sections 4280.112 through 4280.125 discuss the requirements specific to RES and EEI grants. Sections 4280.112 and 4280.113 discuss, respectively, applicant and project eligibility. Section 4280.114 addresses ineligible projects. Section 4280.115 addresses funding provisions for these grants. Sections 4280.116 through 4280.120 address grant application content, technical merit determination, and required documentation. Sections 4280.121 through 4280.124 address the scoring, selection, awarding and administering, and servicing of these grant applications. Section 4280.125 addresses construction planning and development.
( c ) Section 4280.137 presents the process by which the Agency will make combined loan guarantee and grant funding available for RES and EEI projects.
( d ) Sections 4280.149 through 4280.159 present the process by which the Agency will make EA and REDA grant funding available. These sections cover applicant and project eligibility, grant funding, application content, evaluation, scoring, selection, awarding and administering, and servicing.
( e ) Appendices A through C cover technical report requirements. Appendix A applies to EEI projects; Appendix B applies to RES projects with Total Project Costs of Less Than $200,000, but more than $80,000; and Appendix C applies to RES projects with Total Project Costs $200,000 and Greater. Appendices A and B do not apply to RES and EEI projects with Total Project Costs of $80,000 or less, respectively. Instead, technical report requirements for these projects are found in § 4280.120.
( f ) Appendix D covers contents of feasibility study.
Page Thirty-Two





Exhibit 32.2





Statement of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, as the Principal financial
officer of the Company, certifies, 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.

















/s/ Alan BrillAlan BrillInterim Principal Financial OfficerAugust 14, 2009
# Search Census Archive

Home2002

## Pennsylvania

**Census Year:** 2002

**Within:** Volume 1: Geographic Area Series

**

### 						References and Summary					

**

### 						Chapter 1: State Data					

**

### 						Chapter 2: County Data					

**

### 						State and County Profiles					

**

### 						Appendices					

### Other Years

#### 				2012			

#### 				2007			

#### 				2002			

#### 				1997			

#### 				1992			

#### 				1987			

#### 				1982			

#### 				1978			

#### 				1974			

#### 				1969			

#### 				1964			

#### 				1959			

#### 				1954			

#### 				1950			

#### 				1945			

#### 				1940			

#### 				1935			

#### 				1930			

#### 				1925			

#### 				1920			

#### 				1910			

#### 				1900			

#### 				1890			

#### 				1880			

#### 				1870			

- Home
- Login

- Home
- Login

repliche rolex orologigenți falsereplique breitling

**Partners:**

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell UniversityUnited States Department of Agriculture

**Developed & supported by:**

**Albert R. Mann Library****Cornell University****Ithaca, NY 14853-4301**Phone: **(607) 255-5406**Email: **usda-help@cornell.edu**
Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF   Document 42-1   Filed 01/13/22   Page 1 of 12

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF   Document 42-1   Filed 01/13/22   Page 2 of 12

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF   Document 42-1   Filed 01/13/22   Page 3 of 12

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF   Document 42-1   Filed 01/13/22   Page 4 of 12

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF   Document 42-1   Filed 01/13/22   Page 5 of 12

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF   Document 42-1   Filed 01/13/22   Page 6 of 12

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF   Document 42-1   Filed 01/13/22   Page 7 of 12

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF   Document 42-1   Filed 01/13/22   Page 8 of 12

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF   Document 42-1   Filed 01/13/22   Page 9 of 12

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF   Document 42-1   Filed 01/13/22   Page 10 of 12

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF   Document 42-1   Filed 01/13/22   Page 11 of 12

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF   Document 42-1   Filed 01/13/22   Page 12 of 12
157 So.2d 570

#### Bobbie Lee ROBICHEAUX v. Sydney Lee Justilian ROBICHEAUX.

No. 46757.

Nov. 15, 1963.

Farrell A. Blanchard, Donaldsville, for appellant.

James R. Parkerson, Franklin, for appellee.

HAMITER, Justice.

Bobbie Lee Robicheaux obtained the instant appeal from a judgment dismissing his suit for a divorce instituted against his wife, Sydney Lee Justilian Robicheaux. Thereafter, he filed a motion here in which he prayed that we transfer the appeal to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, for the reason that this court is without appellate jurisdiction of it.

The motion is meritorious. Article VII, Section 10 of the Constitution, as amended in 1958, limits the appellate jurisdiction of this court to five classes of cases which are described therein; and the present mat*146ter does not fall within any of those •classifications. Therefore, pursuant to the provisions of LRS 13:4441, we shall transfer the appeal to the proper appellate court.

For the reasons assigned it is ordered that this cause be transferred to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, the record to be filed in such court by appellant within thirty days from the date on which this decree shall become final; otherwise the appeal shall stand dismissed. Appellant shall pay the costs of the appeal to this court, and all other costs shall await the final disposition of the case.
#### § 3600.2 Organization.

The headquarters organization consists of: The Administrator and Associate Administrator; Deputy Administrator for Field Operations; Four Divisions: Estimates, Survey Management, Research, and Systems and Information; and the Agricultural Statistics Board. In the field, each of the 45 State Statistical Offices, serving the 50 States, is under a State Statistician.
§ 3555.353 Net recovery value. The net recovery value of the property is determined differently for properties that have been sold than for properties that remain in the lender's inventory at the time the loss claim is filed. ( a ) *For a property that has been sold.* When a loss claim is filed on a property that was sold to a third party at the foreclosure sale or through an approved pre-foreclosure sale, net recovery value is calculated as follows: ( 1 ) The proceeds from the sale plus any other amounts recovered, minus
( 2 ) The amount of actual liquidation and disposition costs provided those costs are reasonable and customary for the area. Costs incurred by in-house staff may not be included.
( b ) *For a property that has been acquired.* When a loss claim is filed on a property acquired by the lender through a foreclosure sale or a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, the net recovery value is based on an estimated sales price calculated using a market value appraisal along with holding and disposition costs calculated using the acquisition and management factor (also known as the VA Net Value Factor) published by the VA, and other factors as determined by the Agency. The lender must submit a loss claim package, including a market value appraisal, within 60 days of the foreclosure sale date or the date the lender acquires title. If eviction action is required in order to obtain a market value appraisal, the lender must submit the loss claim package, including the market value appraisal, within 60 days of the date the occupants clear the premises and in accordance with other requirements of this subpart. with any loss claim request in accordance with subpart H.
[78 FR 73941, Dec. 9, 2013, as amended at 81 FR 31165, May 18, 2016; 84 FR 70887, Dec. 26, 2019]
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________
No. 96-40233

____________________ RICHARD G. PAINTER, PH.D, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

RICHARD PAINTER, PH.D. and MARTHA LOUISE AIKEN, PH.D.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

GEORGE A. HURST, ET AL.,

Defendants,

GEORGE A. HURST, RONALD F. DODSON, MARK ATKINSON, and THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS

HEALTH CENTER AT TYLER,
Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division (6:94CV653)

_________________________________________________ March 26, 1997 Before REAVLEY, KING, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *- 2 -

Drs. Richard Painter and Martha Lo uise Aiken appeal the
district court’s denial of their motions for judgment as a matter

of law and for new trial, after a jury verdict denying their claim

for retaliat ory dismissal in violation of their First Amendment
right to free speech.

Some witnesses testified that the a ppellants were poor
performers who were discharged on account of their lack of
productivity, while other witnesses testified that appellants were performing well in their positions. The jury found that the
appella nts had not lost their jobs because of retaliation for
engaging in protected speech. Needless to say, we cannot upset a
jury finding where, as here, there was sufficient evidence in the

record such that a reasonable juror could have reached the verdict

in question. T exas Farm Bureau v. United States , 53 F.3d 120, 123
(5th Cir. 1995).

In the light of the fact that the district court found for the
appellants on whether a First Amendment interest was implicated,
and therefore sent this fact issue to the jury, we need not reach

whether the First Amendment was implicated. As noted, the jury
reasonably found that it was not infringed upon.

And, for the above-stated reasons, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying a new trial.

AFFIRMED
4:20-CV-00497-RH-MAF

Case 4:20-cv-00497-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 1 of 5
Case 4:20-cv-00497-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 2 of 5
Case 4:20-cv-00497-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 3 of 5
Case 4:20-cv-00497-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 4 of 5
Case 4:20-cv-00497-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 5 of 5
**EXHIBIT 32.1****SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**     I, Ronald W. Hovsepian, Chief Executive Officer of Novell, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the“Company”), hereby certify that, to my knowledge: (1) The Company’s periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2007 (the“Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.* * *   CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER     /s/ RONALD W. HOVSEPIAN Ronald W. Hovsepian     Date: June 8, 2007
#### § 505.1 Scope and purpose.

These regulations establish fees for loans, copying, or reproduction of materials in the collections of the National Agricultural Library (NAL) within the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Exhibit 10.2


 


AGREEMENT


 


THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this         
day of March, 2009, by and between                                           
(the “Board Member”) and MGP Ingredients, Inc. (the “Company”).


 


WITNESSETH:


 


WHEREAS, the Board Member is currently a
board of director for the Company.


 


WHEREAS, the Company, because of current
economic circumstances, has need for additional liquidity by the reduction of
expenses, and the Board Member is willing to assist the Company in dealing with
short-term liquidity issues by agreeing to a short-term compensation adjustment
agreement.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the parties here to agree as
follows:


 


1.             The
Board Member agrees that the Board Member’s fees and retainer (the “Fees”)
payable during the period commencing March 3, 2009, and ending as of June 30,
2009, may be temporarily adjusted by deferring payment of said Fees in their
entirety until June 30, 2009.


 


2.             For
the period beginning July 1, 2009, Board Member’s Fees shall no longer be
deferred but paid in the ordinary course..


 


3.             The
Company shall pay to the Board Member in a lump sum the cumulative amount of Fees
deferred on June 30, 2009..


 


This Agreement executed as of the day and
year first above written.


 


	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  [Name
  of Board Member]

  
	
   

  	
  Board
  Member

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  MGP
  INGREDIENTS, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:
  CEO, President
#### Delores Saxton, Respondent, v City of New York, Defendant, and H.H.M. Associates, Inc., Appellant.

[815 NYS2d 483]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant H.H.M. Associates, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated September 13, 2004, as, upon re-argument, adhered to a prior determination in an order dated March 3, 2003, denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order dated September 13, 2004 is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court, upon reargument, properly adhered to its prior determination denying the motion of the defendant H.H.M. Associates, Inc. (hereinafter HHM), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. There remains a triable issue of fact as to whether or not HHM created the alleged defect that caused the plaintiffs accident *(see Padula v City of Long Beach,*20 AD3d 555, 556 [2005]; *Cucuzza v City of New York,*2 AD3d 389, 390 [2003]; *Maggio v City of New York,*305 AD2d 554, 555 [2003]; *Gerena v Town of Brookhaven,*280 AD2d 450 [2001]; *cf. Tsviling v City of New York,*275 AD2d 367 [2000]).

Accordingly, HHM was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.
#### § 51.2341 Sample size for grade determination.

For fruit place-packed in tray pack containers, the sample shall consist of the contents of the individual container. For fruit jumble-packed in volume filled containers, the sample shall consist of at least 50 fruit. When individual containers contain at least 50 fruit, each individual sample is drawn from one container. When individual containers contain less than 50 fruit, a sufficient number of adjoining containers are opened to form a 50 fruit sample.

[50 FR 40186, Oct. 2, 1985; 50 FR 40961, Oct. 8, 1985; 51 FR 4293, Feb. 4, 1986]
#### §§ 4279.133-4279.135 [Reserved]
§ 51.1433 U.S. Standard. “U.S. Standard” consists of pecan kernels which meet the following requirements: ( a ) For quality: ( 1 ) Well dried;
( 2 ) Moisture content shall not be more than 4.5 percent, unless otherwise specified;
( 3 ) No requirement for fullness of kernel;
( 4 ) No requirement for uniformity of color;
( 5 ) May contain kernels “dark amber” or darker, unless specified to a lighter color classification;
( 6 ) Free from damage by any cause; and
( 7 ) Comply with tolerances for defects (see § 51.1437).
( b ) For size: ( 1 ) No uniformity in size; and
( 2 ) Conform to size classification or count specified.
#### WALTER v. RAFALSKY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 15, 1906.)

Action by Gustave E. Walter against Rosalie L. Rafalsky.

No opinion. Motion granted; question certified; order filed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

# DATES:

Written comments should be received on or before December 29, 2010 to be assured of consideration.

## Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD)

*OMB Number:*                     1535-0122.                

*Type of Review:*                     Extension without change of a currently approved collection.                

*Title:*                     Voluntary Customer Satisfaction Survey To Implement Executive Order 12862.                

*Abstract:*                     Voluntary surveys to determine customer satisfaction with BPD products and services.                

*Respondents:*                     Individuals and Households.                

*Estimated Total Burden Hours:*                     876 hours.                

*Bureau Clearance Officer:*                     Bruce Sharp, Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, West Virginia 26106; (304) 480-8112.                

*OMB Reviewer:*                     Shagufta Ahmed, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503; (202) 395-7873.                

Robert Dahl,

Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 2010-29926 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-39-P
9.110-5 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.209-14, Reserve Officer Training Corps and

Military Recruiting on Campus, in solicitations and contracts that are expected to exceed the

simplified acquisition threshold, with institutions of higher education, when using funds from a

covered agency. The clause is not prescribed for solicitations and contracts using part 12 for the

acquisition of commercial products and commercial services.

Parent topic: 9.110 Reserve Officer Training Corps and military recruiting on campus.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

GARY LEE SEYMOUR,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-214-TKW-MJF

MARK S. INCH,

Defendant.

/

ORDER

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

Recommendation (Doc. 26). No objections were filed even though the Court gave 

Plaintiff additional time to do so. See Doc. 30. Upon due consideration of the Report 

and Recommendation and the case file, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s 

determination that Plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood that he will 

suffer irreparable injury if a preliminary injunction is not entered. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 6) is DENIED. 

3. This case is recommitted to the magistrate judge for further pretrial 

proceedings.

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 32 Filed 10/01/21 Page 1 of 2
DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of October, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 32 Filed 10/01/21 Page 2 of 2