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 Annual Report of Bond Laboratories, 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, Scott
      Landow, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, That to the best of 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 results of operations of the Company.





BOND
      LABORATORIES, INC.




By /s/
      Scott
      Landow





Scott
      Landow


Chairman,
      CEO


(Sole
      executive officer of the registrant)


April
      2,
      2007
#### § 927.26 Qualifications.

Any person prior to or within 15 days after selection as a member or as an alternate for a member of the Fresh Pear Committee or the Processed Pear Committee shall qualify by filing with the Secretary a written acceptance of the person's willingness to serve.
Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 9 Filed 10/06/2003 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.1

       DESCRIPTION OF FISCAL 1998 EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM

     On July 23, 1997, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the
"Committee") and the Board of Directors of Great Plains Software, Inc. (the
"Company") approved the fiscal 1998 executive incentive compensation program.  A
description of the program follows:

     The Company's fiscal 1998 incentive compensation program allows an 
executive officer (other than the Chief Executive Officer) to earn additional 
cash compensation in an amount up to 30% to 40% of base salary (depending 
upon the specific plan approved for each executive officer) if target level 
performance goals are met.  The Chief Executive Officer may earn an 
additional amount up to 60% of base salary if target level performance goals 
are met.  The total incentive compensation payable for each executive officer 
is based 85% on objective performance criteria and 15% on discretionary 
performance criteria, as determined by the Committee.  Threshold, target and 
maximum goals were set by the Committee for each of the following objective 
performance criteria: operating income, revenue, revenue per employee and 
customer satisfaction. Incentive compensation will be paid only if the 
threshold level of operating income is attained, which reflects the 
Committee's philosophy that incentive compensation payments are merited only 
if the Company meets base level profitability goals.  If the threshold level 
of operating income is reached, incentive compensation will be paid based on 
actual operating income, revenue, revenue per employee and customer 
satisfaction as measured against the threshold, target and maximum goals for 
each of such performance criteria. Threshold performance will result in 
payment of 25% of the target level bonus. A maximum incentive bonus equal to 
150% of the target level bonus can be earned if performance meets or exceeds 
the maximum goal for each performance criterion used under the plan.  The 
operating income and revenue goals are based on both quarterly and annual 
performance, while the other goals are based solely on annual performance.  
The discretionary criteria for the executive officers (other than the Chief 
Executive Officer) are established by the Committee in conjunction with the 
Chief Executive Officer.  The discretionary criteria for the Chief Executive 
Officer are established by the Committee.
#### § 900.310 Supplementary instructions.

The Administrator is authorized to issue instructions and to prescribe forms and ballots, not inconsistent with the provisions of this subpart, to govern the conduct of referenda by referendum agents.
#### § 948.28 Policy.

Any producer whose potatoes have been adversely affected by acts beyond the control or reasonable expectation of a prudent grower and who, by reason of any regulation issued pursuant to this part, is or will be prevented from shipping or having shipped during the then current marketing season, or a specific portion thereof, as large a proportion of his potato crop as the average proportion shipped or to be shipped during comparable portions of the season by all producers in his immediate area of production, may apply to the committee for exemptions from such regulations for the purpose of obtaining equitable treatment under such regulations.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3087 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Brotje automated frame riveter machines. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2006 

Mr. BROWNBACK introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Brotje automated frame 

riveter machines. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BROTJE AUTOMATED FRAME RIVETER MA4 CHINES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.84.63 Brotje automated frame riveter machines 

(provided for in subheading 8463.90.00) Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 3087 IS 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

BEN F. BEARD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv653-WHA

)

LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDING, ) 

INC., etc., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Upon consideration of motions presently before the court, it is hereby ORDERED as

follows:

1. Plaintiff's Motion to Stay or Extend Deadline to Respond to Motion to Transfer Venue

and Motion to Transfer/Reassign Case is extended from August 16, 2006, to a date to be set by

later of the court, if such an order is appropriate.

2. Defendants are given until August 24, 2006, to show cause, if any there be, why the

Plaintiff's Motion to Remand should not be granted. The motion will be taken under submission

for determination at that time.

DONE this 15th day of August, 2006.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton 

W. HAROLD ALBRITTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 16 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7727

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DEMARIO COVINGTON, a/k/a Booger,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (4:11-cr-00417-TLW-1)

Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 26, 2016

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Demario Covington, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker 

Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Demario Covington appeals the district court’s order

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction 

of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Covington, No. 4:11-cr-00417-

TLW-1 (D.S.C. Oct. 14, 2015). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-30889 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. L A W R E NCE CLYDE BRINGIER, JR., also known as J unior, also known as Bread, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:01-CR-172-4
Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal P ublic Defende r appointed t o represent Lawrence Clyde Bringier, Jr., has moved f or leave to withdraw a nd h as filed a brief i n accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 ( 1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 ( 5th Cir. 2011). B r i n g ier h as filed a response. W e have r eviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well

as Bringier’s response. We co n c u r w i t h counsel’s assessment that the appeal U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 9, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-30889 Document: 00512202461 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2013No. 12-30889

presents no nonfrivol o u s i ssue for appellate review. Accordingly, c ounsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused f rom further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS D ISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 12-30889 Document: 00512202461 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2013
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Logan County BancShares, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. 

 

 
| Date: February 28, 2005 | /s/ Mark Mareske |
|-------------------------|------------------|
|                    | Name:            | Mark Mareske |
|                    | Title:           | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
§ 766.104 Borrower eligibility requirements. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 65044 , Aug. 8, 2024.
( a ) A borrower must meet the following eligibility requirements to be considered for primary loan servicing: ( 1 ) The delinquency or financial distress is the result of reduced repayment ability due to one of the following circumstances beyond the borrower's control: ( i ) Illness, injury, or death of a borrower or other individual who operates the farm;
( ii ) Natural disaster, adverse weather, disease, or insect damage which caused severe loss of agricultural production;
( iii ) Widespread economic conditions such as low commodity prices;
( iv ) Damage or destruction of property essential to the farming operation; or
( v ) Loss of, or reduction in, the borrower or spouse's essential non-farm income.
( 2 ) The borrower does not have non-essential assets for which the net recovery value is sufficient to resolve the financial distress or pay the delinquent portion of the loan.
( 3 ) If the borrower is in non-monetary default, the borrower will resolve the non-monetary default prior to closing the servicing action.
( 4 ) The borrower has acted in good faith.
( 5 ) Financially distressed or current borrowers requesting servicing must pay a portion of the interest due on the loans.
( 6 ) The borrower must not be ineligible due to disqualification resulting from Federal crop insurance violation according to 7 CFR part 718.
( b ) Debtors with SA only must: ( 1 ) Be delinquent due to circumstances beyond their control;
( 2 ) Have acted in good faith.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE SKANSKA USA CIVIL

SOUTHEAST INC., AND 

SKANSKA USA, INC., AS OWNERS 

OF THE BARGE KS 5531, 

PRAYING FOR EXONERATION 

FROM LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

Case No. 3:20-cv-5980-LC-HTC

________________________________/

ORDER

Pursuant to the Court’s Discovery Order, at ECF Doc. 1159, a status 

conference will be held before the undersigned on Wednesday, May 26, 2021, at 

10:00 A.M. CT. In advance of the status conference, the parties are to provide to 

the undersigned chambers, via email at flnd_cannon@flnd.uscourts.gov, a copy of 

all served discovery requests as well as any written responses that have been served. 

If no written responses have been served, then the responding party shall identify for 

the Court which requests warrant objection.

As set forth in the Court’s Order, all counsel and client representatives

necessary to resolve and address the outstanding discovery must attend the 

conference and must do so in person. No telephonic or remote appearances will be 

permitted for this initial conference. 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1161 Filed 05/21/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20-cv-5980-LC-HTC

Accordingly, it is ORDERED,

1. A status conference on discovery will be held before the undersigned 

on May 26, 2021, at 10:00 A.M. CT, in Courtroom 3N, United States District 

Court, One North Palafox, Pensacola, FL.

2. By 12:00 P.M. CT on May 25, 2021, the Petitioners shall provide the 

undersigned with a copy of all outstanding discovery requests issued to Petitioners. 

Petitioners shall also provide to the undersigned a copy of any written responses 

served by Petitioners, and if none have been served, then Petitioners shall identify 

those requests that Petitioners believe warrant objection. 

3. By the same time, Claimants shall also provide the undersigned with a 

copy of all outstanding discovery requests issued to Claimants, as well as any written 

responses that have been served, and if none have been served, then Claimants shall 

identify those requests that Claimants believe warrant objection.

4. The requested information shall be delivered via email to 

flnd_cannon@flnd.uscourts.gov. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of May 2021.

/s/ Hope Thai Cannon

HOPE THAI CANNON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1161 Filed 05/21/21 Page 2 of 2
April 1, 1965 

Honorable Ben Atwell, Chairman Opinion No. C-411 

Revenue and Taxation Committee 

House of Representatives Re: Constitutionality of 

Austin, Texas House Bill 315, 59th 

Legislature, Regular 

Dear I%. Atwell: Session. 

You ask the opinion of the Attorney General as to 

whether House Bill 315, 59th Legislature, Regular Session, 

is constitutional. 

This Bill Imposes a new tax 

11 

upon the first sale, 

distribution or use of motor 

fuel in this State for producing or generating power 

for the operation or propulsion of vessels on the waterways of this State, an excise 

tax of five cents (54) per 

gallon, or fractlonal part 

thereof so sold, distrtbuted 

or used In this State . . . .' 

The tax is collected by each "distributor"' who makes a 

first sale, distribution or use of motor fuel in this State 

as provided in Article 9.30 of this Bill. The tax Is reported and paid to the State by such distributor in the 

same manner ‘In which he reports and pays the present motor 

fuel tax imposed by Chapter 9 of said Title 122A. 

L/ Distributor is defined in Article 9.01(4) of the present 

motor fuel tax laws, same being Article 9.01(4) of Title 

122A, Taxation-General, of our Revised Civil Statutes. 

-1941- 
Honorable Ben Atwell, Page 2 (C-411) 

This type of excise tax has been held constitutional. 

State v. City of El Paso, 143 S.W.2d 366, 135 Tex. 359 (1940). 

See also Texas Constitution, Article VIII, Section 17. 

It Is, therefore, our opinion that House Bill 315 is 

constitutional. 

------- SUMMARY 

Rouse Bill No. 315 pending 

before the 59th Legislature, 

Regular Session, is constitutional. 

Yours very truly, 

WAGGONER CARR 

Attorney General of Texas 

WEA/fb 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

Pat Bailey 

John Reeves 

Paul Phy 

Milton Richardson 

APPROVED FOR TEE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: Stanton Stone 

-1942-
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

VFS LEASING CO., )

)

PLAINTIFF, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:06CV638-SRW

VS. )

)

G. F. KELLY, INC d/b/a KELLY )

TRUCKING; and GUY KELLY, ) 

)

DEFENDANTS. )

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE 

 

Come now the Defendants G. F. Kelly, Inc. d/b/a Kelly Trucking and Guy Kelly and

respond to the Motion to Strike filed by Plaintiff by showing the following:

1. The affidavits of Guy Kelly and Charles Lance show on their face that the affiants

are qualified to give the opinions contained therein. Any evidence presented in the 

Motion to Strike goes to the weight of the testimony and not the admissibility.

2. The Declarations contain testimony that comments on testimony and qualifications 

of other witnesses. Such testimony is inadmissible and should be stricken.

3. The Declarations filed are inadmissible because they contain testimony that was not 

timely disclosed.

4. There are questions of fact at issue that require a trial. The court will have to 

determine at trial admissibility of expert testimony, among other things.

5. Plaintiff has the burden of proving the amount of actual damages sustained. There 

are questions of fact at issue that can only be determined by a trial.

6. The affidavits are admissible as expert testimony. The offered proof only goes to the 

weight of the evidence.

 

 /s/ James H. Starnes 

 James H. Starnes 

 Attorney for Defendants

Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 38 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

OF COUNSEL:

P. O. Box 590003

Birmingham, AL 35259-0003

(205) 320-0800

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have the foregoing pleading electronically using the CM/ECF system 

which will electronically serve a copy of same on all counsel of record on this the 7th day of May, 

2007 as follows:

David B. Hall

BAKER DONALDSON 

420 North 20th Street, Suite 1600

Birmingham, AL 35203

 

/s/ James H. Starnes 

 OF COUNSEL

Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 38 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### §§ 766.304-766.350 [Reserved]
Editorial Note on Subpart ECFR7b3ee71a250c28d of Part 799
Editorial Note: At 81 FR 51295, Aug. 3, 2016, subpart F was revised; however, the subpart F heading was published erroneously as a second subpart E.

§ 799.53 Contents of an EIS. ( a ) FSA will prepare the EIS as specified in 40 CFR part 1502 and in section 102 of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4332).
( b ) The EIS should include at least the following: ( 1 ) An FSA cover sheet;
( 2 ) An executive summary explaining the major conclusions, areas of controversy, and the issues to be resolved;
( 3 ) A table of contents;
( 4 ) List of acronyms and abbreviations;
( 5 ) A brief statement explaining the purpose and need of the proposed action;
( 6 ) A detailed discussion of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, a description and brief analysis of the alternatives considered but eliminated from further consideration, the no-action alternative, FSA's preferred alternative(s), and discussion of appropriate mitigation measures;
( 7 ) A discussion of the affected environment;
( 8 ) A detailed discussion of: ( i ) The direct and indirect environmental consequences, including any cumulative impacts, of the proposed action and of the alternatives;
( ii ) Unavoidable adverse environmental effects;
( iii ) The relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and long-term ecosystem productivity;
( iv ) Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources;
( vi ) Possible conflicts with the objectives of Federal, regional, State, local, regional, and Tribal land use plans, policies, and controls for the area concerned;
( vii ) Energy and natural depletable resource requirements, including, but not limited to natural gas and oil, and conservation potential of the alternatives and mitigation measures; and
( viii ) Urban quality, historic, and cultural resources and the design of the built environment, including the reuse and conservation potential of the alternatives and mitigation measures;
( 9 ) In the draft EIS, a list of all Federal permits, licenses, and other entitlements that must be obtained for implementation of the proposed action;
( 10 ) A list of preparers;
( 11 ) Persons and agencies contacted;
( 12 ) References, if appropriate;
( 13 ) Glossary, if appropriate;
( 14 ) Index;
( 15 ) Appendixes, if any;
( 16 ) A list of agencies, organizations, and persons to whom copies of the EIS are sent; and
( 17 ) In the final EIS, a response to substantive comments on environmental issues.
( c ) FSA may have a contractor prepare an EIS as specified in 40 CFR 1506.5(c). If FSA has a contractor prepare an EIS, FSA will: ( 1 ) Require the contractor to sign a disclosure statement specifying it has no financial or other interest in the outcome of the proposed action, which will be included in the administrative record; and
( 2 ) Furnish guidance and participate in the preparation of the EIS, and independently evaluate the EIS before its approval.