alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Petie P. Maguire, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Good Earth Land Sales Company (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:  (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); 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: February 4, 2010  /s/ Petie P. Maguire Petie P. Maguire President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to Good Earth Land Sales Company and will be retained by Good Earth Land Sales Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

EASTERN DIVISION

LUMBERMAN’S UNDERWRITING )

ALLIANCE, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs )

)

vs. ) Civil Action No.: 3:06-CV-645-MEF

)

LOUIS BERRY, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW the Defendant, Louis Berry, and in response to the plaintiff’s second

amended complaint adopts its motion to dismiss, as if fully and completely set out herein, previously

filed in response to the plaintiff’s amended complaint. 

s/Patrick R. Norris 

Patrick R. Norris

asb-3835-s81p

Attorney for defendant

OF COUNSEL:

McDANIEL, BAINS & NORRIS, P.C.

Two Metroplex Drive

Suite 504

Birmingham, Alabama 35209-6812

(205) 871-1811

Case 3:06-cv-00645-MEF-TFM Document 26 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have on this 9 day of May, 2007, served a copy of the foregoing th

pleading on counsel for all parties to this proceeding by placing a copy of same in the U.S. Mail,

properly addressed and first-class postage prepaid to:

Michael S. Jackson

Ryan Wesley Shaw

Beers, Anderson, Jackson, 

 Patty, Van Heest, & Fawal, P.C. 

250 Commerce Street, Suite 100

Montgomery, Alabama 36102

Joshua J. Jackson

Samford & Denson, LLP

Post Office Box 2345

Opelika, Alabama 36803-2345

s/Patrick R. Norris 

Of Counsel

Case 3:06-cv-00645-MEF-TFM Document 26 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 2 of 2
§ 51.688 U.S. No. 3. “U.S. No. 3” consists of oranges which meet the following requirements: ( a ) Basic requirements: ( 1 ) Mature;
( 2 ) May be misshapen;
( 3 ) May be poorly colored. Not more than 25 percent of the surface may be of a solid dark green color;
( 4 ) May be slightly spongy;
( 5 ) May have rough texture;
( 6 ) Not seriously lumpy or cracked; and
( 7 ) Similar varietal characteristics.
( b ) Free from: ( 1 ) Decay;
( 2 ) Unhealed skin breaks; and
( 3 ) Wormy fruit.
( c ) Free from very serious damage caused by other means.
( d ) For tolerances see § 51.689.
[85 FR 68426, Oct. 29, 2020]
----- Forwarded by Doris Lo/R9/USEPA/US on 06/18/2010 03:38 PM

-----

From: "Duane Ono" <dono@gbuapcd.org>

To: Doris Lo/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Ted Schade \ (Ted Schade \ )" <tedschade@yahoo.com>

Date: 06/18/2010 08:44 AM

Subject: FW: DRAFT Coso Junction May 2010 PM10

Doris,

Here's the PM10 data for Coso Junction from January through May 2010. The

data will be invalidated in AIRS due to the site not meeting EPA siting

requirements. I spoke a representative for the property owner yesterday and

they will get the site stabilized by the end of this month. We should start

collecting valid data again in July.

Duane

----- Original Message

-----

From: Chris Howard [mailto:chow ard@gbuapcd.org]

Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 8:33 AM

To: Duane Ono

Subject: RE: DRAFT Coso Junction May 2010 PM10

Hi Duane

-

See attached, revised pdf.

- Chris

----- Original Message

-----

From: Chris Howard [mailto:choward@gbuapcd.org]

Sent: Thursday, J une 17, 2010 3:17 PM

To: Duane Ono (dono@gbuapcd.org)

Subject: DRAFT Coso Junction May 2010 PM10

Hi Duane

-

See attached DRAFT Coso Junction PM10. Please note this data is preliminary

and subject to review and data validation.

Thanks,

Chris
§ 622.3 Relationship to the Pub. L. 78-534 Program. ( a ) *General.* The purposes and objectives of the programs under Pub. L. 83-566 and Pub. L. 78-534 are the same in most cases. Planning criteria, economic justification, local sponsorship, agency participation, financial assistance, eligible measures, operation and maintenance arrangements for the Pub. L. 78-534 program are consistent with those of the Pub. L. 83-566 program. The differences with the Pub. L. 78-534 program are outlined below.
( b ) *Initiation.* Flood prevention projects are individually authorized by Federal legislation. The state conservationist and the sponsors agree on a plan of action and notify interested parties to solicit their participation. The sponsors keep the public informed and solicit their views and comments.
( c ) *Subwatershed plans.* These plans are administratively approved by the state conservationist. If the plan involves purposes other than flood prevention, clearance must be obtained from the Office of Management and Budget before approval. Financial assistance available differs only in that program funds may be used for the purchase of land rights for single-purpose flood prevention structures and installing land treatment on Federal lands.
( d ) *Installation.* NRCS shall award and administer contracts for the installation of project measures unless the sponsors agree to perform the work. Project agreements between the sponsors and NRCS are not required if the work consists of flood prevention structures built and funded by NRCS.
#### § 761.4 Conflict of interest.

The Agency enforces conflict of interest policies to maintain high standards of honesty, integrity, and impartiality in the making and servicing of direct and guaranteed loans. These requirements are established in 5 CFR parts 2635 and 8301.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

vs. CASE NO. 4:01cr45-SPM/AK

GREGORY EUBANKS,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s report

and recommendation dated March 25, 2005 (doc. 105). 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). No objections have been filed. Having considered the report and

recommendation, I have determined that the report and recommendation should

be adopted.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 105) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Defendant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence

Case 4:01-cr-00045-MW-CAS Document 106 Filed 05/17/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

 CASE NO. 4:01cr45-SPM/AK

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. 104) is denied. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of May, 2005.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:01-cr-00045-MW-CAS Document 106 Filed 05/17/05 Page 2 of 2
52.247-63 Preference for U.S.-Flag Air Carriers.       As prescribed in 47.405, insert the following clause:          Preference for U.S.-Flag Air Carriers (June 2003)                                       (a)                   *Definitions*. As used in this clause-                "International air transportation" means transportation by air between a place in the United States and a place outside the United States or between two places both of which are outside the United States.                *United States* means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and outlying areas.                "U.S.-flag air carrier" means an air carrier holding a certificate under 49 U.S.C.Chapter411.                                          (b) 						            Section 5 of the International Air Transportation Fair Competitive Practices Act of1974 (49 U.S.C.40118) (Fly America Act) requires that all Federal agencies and Government contractors and subcontractors use U.S.-flag air carriers for U.S. Government-financed international air transportation of personnel (and their personal effects) or property, to the extent that service by those carriers is available. It requires the Comptroller General of the United States, in the absence of satisfactory proof of the necessity for foreign-flag air transportation, to disallow expenditures from funds, appropriated or otherwise established for the account of the United States, for international air transportation secured aboard a foreign-flag air carrier if a U.S.-flag air carrier is available to provide such services.                                          (c) 						            If available, the Contractor, in performing work under this contract, shall use U.S.-flag carriers for international air transportation of personnel (and their personal effects) or property.                                          (d) 						            In the event that the Contractor selects a carrier other than a U.S.-flag air carrier for international air transportation, the Contractor shall include a statement on vouchers involving such transportation essentially as follows:                Statement of Unavailability of U.S.-Flag Air Carriers                International air transportation of persons (and their personal effects) or property by U.S.-flag air carrier was not available or it was necessary to use foreign-flag air carrier service for the following reasons (see section 47.403 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation): [*State reasons*]:__________________________________________________                (End of statement)                                          (e) 						            The Contractor shall include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (e), in each subcontract or purchase under this contract that may involve international air transportation.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.247 [Reserved]
52.204-5 Women-Owned Business (Other Than Small Business).       As prescribed in 4.607(a), insert the following provision:          Women-Owned Business (Other Than Small Business) (Oct 2014)                                       (a)                   *Definition.*"Women-owned business concern," as used in this provision, means a concern that is at least 51 percent owned by one or more women; or in the case of any publicly owned business, at least 51 percent of its stock is owned by one or more women; and whose management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more women.                                          (b)                   *Representation*. [*Complete only if the offeror is a women-owned business concern and has not represented itself as a small business concern in paragraph (c)(1) of FAR 52.219-1, Small Business Program Representations, of this solicitation*.] The offeror represents that it □ is a women-owned business concern.                                 (End of provision)    **Parent topic:** 52.204 [Reserved]
Exhibit 32  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 Report of Cadiscor Resources Inc. (the Company) on Form 10K/SBA2 for the period ending December 31, 2006, which contains the Companys financial statements audited for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), We, Michel Bouchard, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Pauline Comtois, CGA, a person performing functions similar to the ones of a Chief Financial Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 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) of 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/ Michel Bouchard __________________ Michel Bouchard President and Chief Executive Officer  /s/ Pauline Comtois, CGA __________________ Pauline Comtois, CGA A person performing functions similar to the ones of a Chief Financial Officer for Cadiscor Resources Inc.   February 11, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 279 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.279

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and five

                                 An Act

 
    To amend the Act of June 7, 1924, to provide for the exercise of 
                         criminal jurisdiction.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. INDIAN PUEBLO LAND ACT AMENDMENTS.

    The Act of June 7, 1924 (43 Stat. 636, chapter 331), is amended by 
adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 20. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.

    ``(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided by Congress, 
jurisdiction over offenses committed anywhere within the exterior 
boundaries of any grant from a prior sovereign, as confirmed by 
Congress or the Court of Private Land Claims to a Pueblo Indian tribe 
of New Mexico, shall be as provided in this section.
    ``(b) Jurisdiction of the Pueblo.--The Pueblo has jurisdiction, as 
an act of the Pueblos' inherent power as an Indian tribe, over any 
offense committed by a member of the Pueblo or an Indian as defined in 
title 25, sections 1301(2) and 1301(4), or by any other Indian-owned 
entity.
    ``(c) Jurisdiction of the United States.--The United States has 
jurisdiction over any offense described in chapter 53 of title 18, 
United States Code, committed by or against an Indian as defined in 
title 25, sections 1301(2) and 1301(4) or any Indian-owned entity, or 
that involves any Indian property or interest.
    ``(d) Jurisdiction of the State of New Mexico.--The State of New 
Mexico shall have jurisdiction over any offense committed by a person 
who is not a member of a Pueblo or an Indian as defined in title 25, 
sections 1301(2) and 1301(4), which offense is not subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
52.244-4 Subcontractors and Outside Associates and Consultants (Architect-Engineer Services).       As prescribed in 44.204(b), insert the following clause:          Subcontractors and Outside Associates and Consultants (Architect-Engineer Services) (Aug 1998)          Any subcontractors and outside associates or consultants required by the Contractor in connection with the services covered by the contract will be limited to individuals or firms that were specifically identified and agreed to during negotiations. The Contractor shall obtain the Contracting Officer’s written consent before making any substitution for these subcontractors, associates, or consultants.          (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.244 [Reserved]
Case 3:06-cv-00622-WKW-SRW Document 72 Filed 03/14/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-00622-WKW-SRW Document 72 Filed 03/14/2008 Page 2 of 2
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER JON PERGROSSI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20cv200-MW/GRJ

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,

DEFEATING THE RIGHT TO LIE,

Defendant.

_________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Omnibus 

Order to Show Cause and Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 4, and has also 

reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation.1 ECF 

No. 6.

Plaintiff filed 33 cases over a four-day period, from August 17 through August 

20, 2020. These cases were assigned to three U. S. District Judges in the Northern 

District of Florida. The cases are frivolous. Understandably, the Magistrate Judge 

1 Plaintiff filed a document in Case No. 1:20cv181-MW/GRJ, ECF No. 6, which this Court has 

construed as an omnibus response to the Order to Show Cause and as objections to the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones, ECF No. 4.

Case 1:20-cv-00200-MW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 09/23/20 Page 1 of 2
2

found this extraordinary volume of frivolous cases merits the imposition of 

restrictions on future filings in order to preserve scarce judicial resources and protect 

the efficient administration of justice. While a close call, this Court will not restrict 

future filings unless Plaintiff continues to abuse the process. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted in part, over 

Plaintiff’s objections, as this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, 

“This case is DISMISSED without leave to amend as frivolous and/or for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

No restrictions are imposed on future filings unless Plaintiff continues to abuse the 

judicial process.” The Clerk shall also close the file. 

SO ORDERED on September 23, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00200-MW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 09/23/20 Page 2 of 2
§ 759.6 EM to be made available. ( a ) For purposes of the EM Program under part 764, subpart I, of this chapter, a county will be considered an eligible disaster area as designated by FSA for coverage of the EM Program as follows: ( 1 ) *Secretarial designations.* When production losses meet the requirements in § 759.5 and the county has been designated as a disaster area for that reason, or when the discretionary exception to production losses for EM under § 759.5(d) has been exercised, the primary and contiguous counties will be areas in which otherwise eligible producers can receive EM loans.
( 2 ) *Physical loss notification.* When only qualifying physical losses occur, the SED will submit a request to the FSA Administrator to make a determination that a natural disaster has occurred in a county, resulting in severe physical losses. If the FSA Administrator determines that such a natural disaster has occurred, then EM can be made available to eligible farmers for physical losses only in the primary county (the county that was the subject of that determination) and the counties contiguous to that county.
( 3 ) *USDA quarantine.* Any quarantine imposed by the Secretary of Agriculture under the Plant Protection Act or the animal quarantine laws, as defined in section 2509 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, automatically authorizes EM for production and physical losses resulting from the quarantine in a primary county (the county in which the quarantine was in force) and (where the quarantine effects extend beyond that county) the counties contiguous to that primary county.
( 4 ) *Presidential declaration.* Whenever the President declares a Major Disaster Declaration or an Emergency Declaration, FSA will make EM available to eligible applicants in declared and contiguous counties, provided: ( i ) The Presidential declaration is not solely for Category A or Category B Public Assistance or Hazard Mitigation Grant Assistance, and
( ii ) The Presidential Major Disaster declaration is for losses due to severe, general disaster conditions including but not limited to conditions such as flood, hurricane, or earthquake.
( b ) [Reserved]
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) CR. NO. 2:06-cr-169-WKW

 )

DARNELL MONTREZE BROWN )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the motion for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, filed April 25,

2007, and for good cause shown, it is

ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of this Court is hereby DIRECTED

to issue a WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS AD PROSEQUENDUM addressed to Chilton County Jail,

Clanton, Alabama, commanding it to deliver Darnell Montreze Brown to any United States Marshal

or Deputy United States Marshal, and directing said Marshal or Deputy to bring said prisoner before

this court, to be held at Montgomery, Alabama, on April 26, 2007, at 4:00 pm, and to return the

prisoner to said official when the court shall have finished with him.

DONE this the ______ day of April, 2007

______________________________

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 209-2 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 1 of 1
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2016188EN.01002801.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 13.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 188/28 |

---

Corrigendum to Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 173 of 12 June 2014](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2014_173_R_TOC)
)

On page 385, point 43 of Article 4(1):

for:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘(43) | “structured deposit” means a deposit as defined in point (c) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2014/49/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ...’, |

read:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘(43) | “structured deposit” means a deposit as defined in point (3) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2014/49/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ...’. |

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hector Cepeda Reyes, Appellant.

Judgment Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on February 28, 1977, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Birns, J. P., Sullivan, Markewich, Lupiano and Silverman, JJ.
PaulA. LePage 

GOVERNOR 

s lAlE OF MAINE 

DEPARHiENT OF TRANSPORTATIO"K 

16 STATE HOUSF STATIO:-! 

AUGt!SlA, MAINE 04333-0016 

December 14, 20 15 

Byron K. Huffman, Acting Director 

Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis 

800 Independence Ave. S W 

Washington D.C. 20591 

Dear Mr. Huffman: 

David Bernhardt 

COMMISSIONER 

With this letter, we respectfully confirm the State of Maine's compliance to FAA's Policy and 

Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue (64 FR 7696, February 16, 1999). It has 

been MaineDOT policy for close to two decades to use all revenue, approximately $950,000 

annually, from aviation fuel tax for aviation purposes including management fees for the stateowned Augusta Airport and staff salaries for MaincDOT's aviation engineer and planner. In 

addition, the State of Maine offers a 5% bond match (approximately $1.5M each year) to all 

FAA projects for General Aviation and Commercial airports. 

Please feel free to contact this office with questions or concerns regarding MaineDOT's 

compliance. 

Sincerely, 

~-kJJ~ Susan Moreau, Manager 

Bureau of Planning, Maine DOT 

THE MAINE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IS AN A!llRMAIIVE ACTION . EQUAl OPPORI UI'll Y EMPLOHR 

PHONE: (207) 624-3000 TTY: 888-516-9364 FAX: (207! 624-3001
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 183-2 Filed 04/03/2007 Page 1 of 1