alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of FLOMO RESOURCES, INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jason Gin, President, Secretary and 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:

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

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



|Date: June 4, 2008
|------------------

|By: Name:
Title: | /s/ Jason Gin Jason Gin
President, Secretary and Treasurer (principal executive officer, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer)
|---------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
3.1004 Contract clauses.       (a) Insert the clause at FAR 52.203-13, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct, in solicitations and contracts if the value of the contract is expected to exceed $6 million and the performance period is 120 days or more.                                          (b)                                                         (1) Unless the contract is for the acquisition of a commercial product or commercial service or will be performed entirely outside the United States, insert the clause at                             52.203-14, Display of Hotline Poster(s), if–                                                                           (i) The contract exceeds $6 million or a lesser amount established by the agency; and                                                                              (ii)                                                                                             (A) The agency has a fraud hotline poster; or                                                                                                (B) The contract is funded with disaster assistance funds.                                                                                                                                                                      (2) In paragraph (b)(3) of the clause, the contracting officer shall–                                                                           (i) Identify the applicable posters; and                                                                              (ii) Insert the website link(s) or other contact information for obtaining the agency and/or Department of Homeland Security poster.                                                                                                           (3) In paragraph (d) of the clause, if the agency has established policies and procedures for display of the OIG fraud hotline poster at a lesser amount, the contracting officer shall replace " $6 million " with the lesser amount that the agency has established.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 3.10 - Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct
161 So.2d 281

#### Kerlin REDDING v. S. H. CADE et al.

No. 47121.

March 16, 1964.

In re: Southern Casualty Insurance Company applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Natchitoches. 158 So.2d 880.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error of law in the judgment complained of.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

PATRICK ANTHONY RIBBING,

 Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20cv5696-MCR-HTC

PENSACOLA STATE COLLEGE, et al.,

 Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER

This case is before the Court based on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 6). The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

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

reflects that the Report and Recommendation was returned as undeliverable and 

“unable to forward.” The docket also reflects that all other mail from the Court to 

Plaintiff has been returned as undeliverable. It is the Plaintiff’s responsibility to 

maintain a current address with the Court. Moreover, an affidavit from Plaintiff filed 

on September 1, 2020, is untimely and fails to comply with the prior order of the 

Magistrate Judge. 

Case 3:20-cv-05696-MCR-HTC Document 10 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5696-MCR-HTC

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 (Doc. 6) is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff’s 

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with orders of the Court.

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of September 2020.

s/M. Casey Rodgers M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05696-MCR-HTC Document 10 Filed 09/25/20 Page 2 of 2
ex10-1.htm


    EXHIBIT
10.1

    


    


    BUFFALO
WILD WINGS, INC.

    2009
EXECUTIVE CASH INCENTIVE PROGRAM

    FOR CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER

    


    


    Our
executive cash incentive program for fiscal 2009 under the previously adopted
Cash Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) for the Chief Executive Officer was approved on
March 2, 2009 by the Board of Directors pursuant to a recommendation by the
Compensation Committee, which program is similar to the 2009 program adopted on
December 4, 2008 for the other executive officers.  The Plan is
designed to provide an annual incentive to executive officers based on the
achievement of certain financial objectives, as well as individual personal
objectives.  The financial objectives are set annually by our Board of
Directors.  Payments under the 2009 program for achievement of Company
financial objectives are based on the following: revenue, net income, same-store
sales increases, increase in the number of Company locations, and increase in
the number of franchise locations.

    


    The Chief
Executive Officer may receive cash incentive payments of up to 122.6% of her
base salary for the Company achieving financial objectives and up to an
additional 22.6% of base salary on a discretionary basis for individual
performance as determined in the discretion of our Board of
Directors.  The level of the cash incentive amount payable based on
Company financial objectives varies depending upon the percentage of the
objective that we achieve.  If a certain minimum percentage for a
Company financial objective is not achieved, no payment is paid for that
objective.
#### Jeffrey R. Fazio et al., Appellants, v Main Duane Owners Corp. et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[814 NYS2d 524]

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen Smith, J.), entered January 7, 2005, and order, same court and Justice, entered December 15, 2004, unanimously discontinued in accordance with the terms of the stipulation of the parties hereto. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Teresa M. Sinozko, Appellant, v. Morse Chain Company, Respondent. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Cooke, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed December 12, 1968, which disallowed a claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. In view of claimant’s account concerning the striking of her elbow, the proof of her failure to notify the foremen of the blow to said joint and her omission to include same initially to an orthopedic consultant as part of the medical history, as well as evidence concerning the side of the elbow involved, the question of whether claimant in fact had sustained an accidental injury to the right elbow was one of fact for the board *(Matter of Giocastro*v. *New York City Tr. Auth.,*24 A D 2d 679; *Matter of Zruk*v. *Forest Mills Eosp.,*14 A D 2d 952). The selection by the board, as between the conflicting opinions of the orthopedist and the neurosurgeon on the subject of causal relationship, was also an exercise of its fact-finding power, it not being this court’s function to determine which is the more persuasive *(Matter of Palermo*v. *Gallucei <& Sons,*5 N Y 2d 529, 532-533). Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Cooke, J.
#### § 51.1407 Application of tolerances.

Individual 100-count samples shall have not more than one and one-half times a specified tolerance of 5 percent or more and not more than double a tolerance of less than 5 percent, except that at least one pecan which is seriously damaged by live insects inside the shell is permitted: *Provided,* That the averages for the entire lot are within the tolerances specified for the grade.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case Nos. 5:03cr5/MCR/GRJ

5:13cv409/MCR/GRJ

JACKIE L. FREEMAN

____________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated January 6, 2014. (Doc. 152). 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). The Court has

made a de novo determination of the timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and Defendant’s objections

thereto timely filed (doc. 154), the Court has determined that the Report and

Recommendation should be adopted.1

Accordingly, it is now ordered as follows:

1. Defendant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence (doc. 151) is

DENIED and DISMISSED as untimely.

Even if the Court considered the merits of Defendant’s argument that he cannot be convicted of

1

both armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d), and use of a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. §

924(c), because there was only one firearm in use, the decision would be the same. The Eleventh Circuit has

rejected this argument, explaining that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits a court from “imposing greater

punishment than intended by Congress” but not from “imposing the exact punishment intended by Congress.”

United States v. Bauer, 956 F.2d 239, 241 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 976 (1992); see United States

v. Dowd, 451 F.3d 1244, 1251-52 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 941 (2006). Congress explicitly

authorized cumulative punishment in Section 924(c). Bauer, 956 F.2d at 241 (citing United States v. Ricks,

817 F.2d 692, 699 (11th Cir. 1987)). Therefore, Defendant’s argument would not succeed even if he could

establish an exception to the statute of limitations.

Case 5:03-cr-00005-MCR-GRJ Document 158 Filed 06/09/14 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of June, 2014.

M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:03-cr-00005-MCR-GRJ Document 158 Filed 06/09/14 Page 2 of 2
#### Emilicent M. Kellar, as Executrix of Alexander Mulki, Deceased, Appellant, v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, Defendant and Interpleading Plaintiff. Catherine Milkie et al., Individually and as Executors of Afifi Milkie, Deceased, et al., Interpleaded Defendants-Respondents.

Judgment reversed on the law and facts, with costs, and judgment granted to plaintiff, with costs. Memorandum: The proof discloses (albeit to a great extent by respondents’ “offers of counsel”) that the assignments of the policies of insurance to respondents’ testatrix were conditional and to be discharged upon demand by the insured, which demand had been properly made, and refused. Respondents produced no witness or other evidence. Upon this state of the record, the burden of showing anything other than a conditional assignment was cast upon respondents, a burden which they clearly failed to sustain. All concur, Moule, J., not participating. (Appeal from judgment of Erie Trial Term in action to recover on insurance policy.) Present—'Del Vecchio, J. P., Marsh, Witmer, Gabrielli and Moule, JJ.
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
THE SAINT JAMES COMPANY

We have audited the accompanying  balance sheets of The Saint James Company,  (a
corporation)  at December 31,  1998;  March 31,  1999;  June 30,  1999,  and the
related  statements  of income,  retained  earnings,  and cash flows for the one
year, three months,  and six months then ended.  These financial  statements are
the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express
an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.
Those standards  require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance   about  whether  the  financial   statements  are  free  of  material
misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes
assessing the  accounting  principles  used and  significant  estimates  made by
management,  as well as evaluating overall financial statement presentation.  We
believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion,  the financial  statements  referred to above present fairly, in
all material  respects,  the  financial  position of the Saint James  Company at
December  31,  1998,  March 31,  1999,  June 30,  1999,  and the  results of its
operation  and its cash  flows for the one year and three  months and six months
then ended in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.


/s/  Barry L. Friedman
----------------------
     Barry L. Friedman
     Las Vega, Nevada
     July 19, 1999
ECONOMIC AND REGULATORY EVALUATION

Regulatory Evaluation Form, Revision 2.5 Page 1 of 1

1/15/10

AD Title: Champion (Slick) Magnetos with Migrated Stop Pin

Docket No. FAA-2011-0085 Directorate Identifier: 2000-NE-19-AD

Costs:

Costs per Product (e.g., engine, propeller)

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

WorkhoursLabor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection of Records 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 100 $8,500

Inspection of Engines

(added models only) 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 100 $8,500

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $17,000

Costs covered under warranty

Special considerations for Economic Analysis: Only the RR O-300 models are addressed in the economic 

analysis as they are newly added in this release. Acurate data on exisitng models in service is not available. An 

estmate is provided from TCM based on market knowledge. Full warranty replacement is provided by the per 

Service Bulletins for any affected units. 

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES explain below NO 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES explain below NO 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES explain below NO 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES explain below NO 

Explanation:
§ 460.7 Requirement to purchase crop insurance. ( a ) For the first 2 consecutive crop years after receiving a payment under this subpart: ( 1 ) A participant who receives a payment under this subpart for prevented planting for a crop in a county must obtain crop insurance for all acres planted to that crop in that county; or
( 2 ) If crop insurance is no longer available for the crop in that county, the participant must obtain NAP coverage if available for the applicable crop year. A participant will only be considered to have obtained NAP coverage for the purposes of this section if the participant paid the NAP service fee and any premium by the applicable deadline and complied with all program requirements.
( b ) If a participant fails to obtain crop insurance or NAP coverage as required in paragraph (a) of this section, the participant must reimburse the full amount of the payment under this subpart received for the applicable crop, plus interest calculated from the date of disbursement.
§ 58.248 Nonfat dry milk. ( a ) Nonfat dry milk in commercial bulk containers bearing an official identification shall meet the requirements of U.S. Extra Grade or U.S. Standard Grade.
( b ) Regular nonfat dry milk in consumer size packages which bears an official identification shall meet the requirements of U.S. Extra Grade. In addition, the nonfat dry milk shall be sampled and tested in accordance with §§ 58.244 and 58.245.
#### § 4284.14 Grant servicing.

Grants will be serviced in accordance with 7 CFR part 1951, subparts E and O and the Departmental Grants and Agreements Regulations as currently codified in 2 CFR parts 400, 415, 417, 418, and 421. The only exception is that the delegation of post-award servicing does not require the prior approval of the Administrator. Grantees will permit periodic inspection of the program operations by a representative of the Agency. All non-confidential information resulting from the Grantee's activities shall be made available to the general public on an equal basis.

[79 FR 76017, Dec. 19, 2014]
# L_2021455DE.01003701.xml

| 20.12.2021 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 455/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 455/37

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) 2021/1147 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 7. Juli 2021 zur Einrichtung des Asyl-, Migrations- und Integrationsfonds

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 251 vom 15. Juli 2021
  )

Der Ausdruck „Migrationsmanagement“ wird in der Verordnung durchgehend durch den Ausdruck „Migrationsverwaltung“ in der entsprechenden grammatikalischen Form ersetzt.

Seite 31, Artikel 38 Absatz 1

Anstatt:

„(1)   Die Kommission wird von dem mit Artikel 32 der Verordnung (EU) 2021/1148 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates39 eingerichteten Ausschuss für die Innenfonds unterstützt.“

muss es heißen:

„(1)   Die Kommission wird von dem mit Artikel 32 der Verordnung (EU) 2021/1148 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates39 eingerichteten Ausschuss für die Fonds für innere Angelegenheiten unterstützt.“

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ronald Lee PHILLIPS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-30393.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 6, 2007.*

Filed Aug. 22, 2007.

*436Retta Rae Randall, Esq., U.S. Attorney, Asst. U.S. Attorney, Jo Ann Ferrington, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Meredith Appel Ahearn, Esq., Hagans Ahearn & Webb, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: WALLACE, NOONAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Phillips appeals from the district court’s amended judgment requiring that he make restitution to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in the amount of $247,275.57. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review the district court’s restitution order for an abuse of discretion. *United States v. Lomow,*266 F.3d 1013, 1020 (9th Cir.2001). The district court’s valuation methodology is reviewed de novo while its underlying factual findings are reviewed for clear error. *Id.*

The district court did not clearly err by crediting Vandersnick’s and Wetherington’s testimony. That testimony was “plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety.” *United States v. Gust,*405 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir.2005) (quotations and citation omitted). The district court also did not clearly err by finding that certain buses had no value as of September 18, 2002. *See United States v. Welp,*469 F.2d 688, 688 (9th Cir.1972) (holding that “[a] definite and firm conviction that a mistake was committed below is a prerequisite to appellate reversal” of a district court’s finding of fact (internal quotations and citation omitted)). Phillips also fails to show that the district court clearly erred by giving “little weight” to testimony concerning whether certain buses could have been sold for parts or improved. In the absence of contrary evidence, the letter attached to the strike-price contract is sufficient to support the district court’s finding that Wetherington served as Phillips’s agent at the time the strike-price contract was entered.

Finally, the district court could have inferred that Phillips overpaid for the buses from the testimony of the government’s expert witnesses as well as Phillips’s own testimony that he purchased the buses in *437“a last and desperate and arguably foolish attempt to achieve lifetime success.”

Because Phillips’s challenges to the district court’s findings all fail, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by requiring in its judgment that Phillips make restitution in the amount of $247,275.57.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Editorial Note on Part 57
Editorial Note: 1. At 63 FR 69969, Dec. 17, 1998, part 57 was added by duplicating portions of part 59. At 63 FR 72353, Dec. 31, 1998, part 59 was redesignated as part 590 of 9 CFR. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 57 appear at 63 FR 69971, Dec. 17, 1998.

§ 57.350 Procedures for selecting appeal samples. ( a ) Products shall not have been moved from the place where the inspection being appealed was performed and must have been maintained under adequate refrigeration when applicable.
( b ) The appeal sample shall consist of product taken from the original sample containers plus an equal number of containers selected at random. When the original samples are not available or have been altered, such as removing the undergrades, the sample size shall be double the number of samples required in 7 CFR 56.4.
[63 FR 69968, 69971, Dec. 17, 1998, as amended at 69 FR 57167, Sept. 24, 2004]
#### Household Finance Realty Corporation of New York, Respondent, v Peter Gonzalez et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Submitted June 25, 2007;

decided July 2, 2007

Reported below, 39 AD3d 1138.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

 PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN IN RE SKANSKA USA

CIVIL SOUTHEAST INC. AND

SKANSKA USA, INC., AS

OWNERS OF THE BARGE KS ADMIRALTY RULE 9(H)

5531 PRAYING FOR

EXONERATION FROM OR Case No.: 3:20cv5980/LAC/HTC

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY 

___________________________________/

ORDER

The Motion for Leave to File or Assert a Sur-Sur Reply (Doc. 1190), filed by

Plaintiffs Skanska USA Civil Southeast Inc., and Skanska USA, Inc., is DENIED

without prejudice in light of the Court’s hearing on the related motions and the

opportunity it provided for the parties to address matters relevant to the instant

motion.

ORDERED on this 25th day of June, 2021.

 s/L.A. Collier 

Lacey A. Collier

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1199 Filed 06/25/21 Page 1 of 1