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


August 5, 2005


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20549

CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER REGARDING
PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS


I, Randy Edgerton, the Chief Executive Officer of eNucleus, Inc. (the
"Company"), in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that, to the best of 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 represents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                            /s/  Randy Edgerton
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Randy Edgerton
                                                 Chief Executive Officer



August 5, 2005





This Certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Part 5619 - SMALL BUSINESS AND SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS CONCERNS       Subpart 5619.2 - POLICIES                                                         5619.201 - General Policy.                                                                             Subpart 5619.7 - THE SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PROGRAM                                                         5619.705 Responsibilities of the Contracting Officer Under the Subcontract Assistance Program.                                                                           5619.705-3 Preparing the Solicitation.                                                                              5619.705-4 Reviewing the Subcontract Plan.    Subpart 5619.2 - POLICIES     5619.201 - General Policy.    *(Revised October 2010)*       (d)(10)(1) The Small Business Coordination Record (DD 2579) shall be completed by the contract specialist and reviewed by the Small Business Specialist on all acquisitions (including Federal Supply Schedule orders) over $10,000, except those under the simplified acquisition threshold that are totally set aside for small business concerns.       (2)Reserved.       (3)Attach the Market Research Report (see DCG) to the Small Business Coordination Record (DD 2579) when submitting the DD 2579 for approval of acquisitions above the simplified acquisition threshold. Market research policies are located in FAR, DFARS, and SOFARS Part 10.Subpart 5619.7 - THE SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PROGRAM    *(Added January 2009)* 5619.705 Responsibilities of the Contracting Officer Under the Subcontract Assistance Program.     5619.705-3 Preparing the Solicitation.    *(Revised January 2018)*       The contracting officer shall provide the small business specialist five (5) business days prior to issuing the solicitation. The small business specialist will forward the solicitation to the PCR. After five business days have elapsed without input from the small business specialist or PCR, the contracting officer may proceed with release of the solicitation.5619.705-4 Reviewing the Subcontract Plan.    (d) All subcontracting plans that contain a Small Disadvantage Business goal of less than 5% must be approved one level above the contracting officer. If the primary contracting officer is also the office/division chief, then forward the subcontracting plan to the command’s Director of Small Business Programs for approval.              HQ, United States Special Operations Command       Special Operations Forces Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (SOF AT&L-K)       SOFARS 5619       February 2007
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

VFS LEASING CO., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06cv638-SRW

)

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

KELLY TRUCKING, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Upon notification by the parties that they have reached a settlement in this matter, and

for good cause, it is

ORDERED that the trial of this case set for August 6, 2007 is hereby CANCELLED.

On or before August 2, 2007, the parties shall file a joint stipulation of dismissal or other

appropriate pleadings to conclude this case.

DONE, this 20th day of July, 2007.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 47 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 1 of 1
# FILED

2006 May-11 PM 03:28 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA 

## Case 3:06-cv-00691-WHA-WC Document 2 Filed 05/08/2006 Page 1 of 2

## Case 3:06-cv-00691-WHA-WC Document 2 Filed 05/08/2006 Page 2 of 2
# 11.203 Customer satisfaction.

*Acquisition* organizations *shall* communicate with customers to determine how well the requirements document reflects the customer’s needs and to obtain suggestions for corrective actions. Whenever practicable, the agency *may* provide affected industry an opportunity to comment on the requirements documents.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 11.2 - Using and Maintaining Requirements Documents
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

§ 810.804 Grades and grade requirements for mixed grain. ( a ) *U.S. Mixed Grain (grade).* Mixed grain with not more than 15.0 percent of damaged kernels, and not more than 3.0 percent of heat-damaged kernels, and that otherwise does not meet the requirements for the grade U.S. Sample grade Mixed Grain.
( b ) *U.S. Sample grade Mixed Grain.* Mixed grain that: ( 1 ) Does not meet the requirements for the grade U.S. Mixed Grain; or
( 2 ) Contains more than 16.0 percent moisture; or
( 3 ) Contains 8 or more stones that have an aggregate weight in excess of 0.2 percent of the sample weight, 2 or more pieces of glass, 3 or more Crotalaria seeds (*Crotalaria* spp.), 2 or more castor beans (*Ricinus communis* L.), 8 more cockleburs (*Xanthium* spp.) or similar seeds singly or in combination, 4 or more pieces of an unknown foreign substance(s) or a recognized harmful or toxic substance(s), 10 or more rodent pellets, bird droppings, or an equivalent quantity of other animal filth per 1,000 grams of mixed grain; or
( 4 ) Is musty, sour, or heating; or
( 5 ) Has any commercially objectionable foreign odor except smut or garlic; or
( 6 ) Is otherwise of distinctly low quality.
#### § 948.101 Terms.

The terms used in this subpart shall have the same meaning as when used in §§ 948.1 to 948.92.
52.251 [Reserved]

52.251-1 Government Supply Sources.

52.251-2 Interagency Fleet Management System Vehicles and Related Services.

Parent topic: Subpart 52.2 - Text of Provisions and Clauses
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 237 (Friday, December 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 76953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31098]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board


Foreign-Trade Zone 207--Richmond, VA Site Renumbering Notice

    Foreign-Trade Zone 207 was approved by the Foreign-Trade Zones 
Board on March 31, 1995 (Board Order 733) and expanded on September 9, 
2005 (Board Order 1413).
    FTZ 207 currently consists of 2 ``sites'' totaling 2,276 acres in 
the Richmond area. The current update does not alter the physical 
boundaries that have previously been approved, but instead involves an 
administrative renumbering that separates certain non-contiguous sites 
for record-keeping purposes.
    Under this revision, the site list for FTZ 207 will be as follows: 
Site 1 (2044 acres)--within the Richmond International Airport Complex; 
Site 2 (221 acres)--SouthPoint Business Park, 8100 Quality Drive, 
Prince George; and, Site 3 (11 acres)--Lewiston Industrial Park, 11293 
Central Drive, Ashland.
    For further information, contact Maureen Hinman at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#315c50444354545f1f59585f5c505f7145435055541f565e47"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5934382c2b3c3c3777313037343837192d2b383d3c773e362f">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 482-0627.

    Dated: December 1, 2010.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-31098 Filed 12-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1617
YIQUN GUO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE RYLAND GROUP, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee, and ARLENE MALECH; DOUGLAS TOWNSEND, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-1319-JFM) Submitted: August 5, 1997 Decided: August 25, 1997 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yiqun Guo, Appellant Pro Se. Richard J. Hafets, Eric Paltell, PIPER & MARBURY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant, Yiqun Guo, appeals the district court's ordersawarding costs to the Defendant Ryland Group and denying Guo's motion for reconsideration of the order. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Guo v. Ryland Group, Inc. , No. CA-95-1319-JFM (D. Md. Apr. 2, 1997; April 15, 1997). We find that the district court properly denied Guo’s motion for reconsideration because the clerk's order awarding costs to Ryland Group was not barred by res judicata. Res judicata is inapplicable to the bill of costs award because the prior denial of attorneys' fees decided a separate issue and did not implicate the bill of costs. We deny Ryland's motion to dismiss the appeal.We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 915.235 Assessment rate.

On and after April 1, 2022, an assessment rate of $0.50 per 55-pound container or equivalent is established for avocados grown in South Florida.

[87 FR 52433, Aug. 26, 2022]
Page 1 of 2

Case No. 5:98cr38-RH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 5:98cr38-RH

LOUIS DARRYL VARELA,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER TERMINATING SUPERVISED RELEASE

The probation officer has submitted a memorandum recommending early 

termination of the defendant Louis Darryl Varela’s supervised release. The 

probation officer has indicated the government does not oppose the request. 

I have considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the criteria 

listed in Monograph 109 as approved by the Judicial Conference of the United 

States. I find that termination of supervised release at this time is warranted by the 

defendant’s conduct and the interest of justice. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

Case 5:98-cr-00038-SPM Document 147 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 5:98cr38-RH

Mr. Varela’s term of supervised release is terminated as of August 8, 2016, 

at 9:41 a.m.

SO ORDERED on August 8, 2016.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 5:98-cr-00038-SPM Document 147 Filed 08/08/16 Page 2 of 2
5135.070-1 Indemnification under research and development contracts.    (1)  Send requests for authorization through contracting channels to the addressee in 5101.290(b)(2)(ii)(C) in time to reach the addressee at least 30 working days prior to the planned release of the solicitation.       (2)  Each secretarial request for authorization must contain –       (i)  The information required by FAR 50.104-3(b) except (b)(1)(iii);       (ii)  The clause and facts showing that the contract is for research or development or both;       (iii)  A statement that the proposed indemnification clause complies fully with the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2354;       (iv)  The reasons the use of the indemnification clause would be in the Government’s interest; and       (v)  The signatures of the head of the contracting activity or the senior contracting official and the contracting officer.       (3)  Handle requests for indemnification under Pub. L. 85-804 in accordance with FAR 50.104-3 and DFARS 250.104-3-70. **Parent topic:** 5135.070 Indemnification against unusually hazardous risks.
252.225-7033 Waiver of United Kingdom

Levies.

As prescribed in 225.1101 (8), use the following clause:

WAIVER OF UNITED KINGDOM LEVIES (APR 2003)

(a) The U.S. Government may attempt to obtain a waiver of any commercial exploitation levies

included in the price of this contract, pursuant to the U.S./United Kingdom (U.K.) reciprocal waiver

agreement of July 1987. If the U.K. grants a waiver of levies included in the price of this contract,

the U.S. Government reserves the right to reduce the contract price by the amount of the levy

waived plus associated indirect costs and profit or fee.

(b) If the Contractor contemplates award of a subcontract exceeding $1 million to a U.K. firm, the

Contractor shall provide the following information to the Contracting Officer before award of the

subcontract:

(1) Name of the U.K. firm.

(2) Prime contract number.

(3) Description of item to which the levy applies.

(4) Quantity being acquired.

(5) Amount of levy plus any associated indirect costs and profit or fee.

(c) In the event of difficulty in identifying levies included in a price from a prospective subcontractor,

the Contractor may seek advice through the Director of Procurement, United Kingdom Defence

Procurement Office, British Embassy, 3100 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006.

(d) The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (d), in any

subcontract for supplies where a lower-tier subcontract exceeding $1 million with a U.K. firm is

anticipated.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 252.225 RESERVED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM D. BOWDEN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No.: 2:06-CV-665

)

MISSION PETROLEUM CARRIERS, )

ANTONIO MARTINEZ NAVARRO )

)

Defendants. )

DEPOSITION DISCLOSURE

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, William D. Bowden, and pursuant to the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure disclose the following deposition testimony as that which they may use at the

trial of this matter:

1. The deposition of any medical doctor taken in this matter included but not limited

to Dr. Patrick Ryan and Dr. Mont Highley;

2. The deposition of Mike Staff;

3. The deposition of Trooper Clint Harrell;

4. The Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this list as allowed by law as

necessitated by further discovery and depositions taken in this case;

5. The Plaintiff reserves the right to use any deposition testimony identified by the

Defendants; and

6. The Plaintiff reserves the right to use any deposition testimony necessary for

impeachment.

Case 2:06-cv-00665-WHA-WC Document 29 Filed 04/09/2007 Page 1 of 2
Dated this the 9th day of April, 2007.

McPhillips, Shinbaum, & Gill, L.L.P.

516 S. Perry Street /s/ James G. Bodin 

P.O. Box 64 JAMES G. BODIN

Montgomery, AL 36101-0064 Attorney for the Plaintiff

PH.(334) 262-1911

FAX(334) 263-2321

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing on the following counsel of

record by delivery U.S. mail on this the 9th day of April, 2007.

Caroline T. Pryor, Esq.

CARR ALLISON

P. O. Box 1126

Daphne, Alabama 36526

 /s/ James G. Bodin 

 OF COUNSEL

Case 2:06-cv-00665-WHA-WC Document 29 Filed 04/09/2007 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000760386
<NAME> WELLESLEY III-D FDS 6/30/98
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         286,328
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  181,093
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,607
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               478,829
<PP&E>                                       5,314,654
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,797,338
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,996,145
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          144,276
<BONDS>                                        486,027
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        8,988,039
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (7,622,197)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,996,145
<SALES>                                        931,696
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               964,983
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,373
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               572,150
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (2,999)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              33,127
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                294,332
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            294,332
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   294,332
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    13.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Theodore C. Wrench, Appellant.

Cooke, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chenango County rendered November 4, 1968 upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of assault in the second degree. Section 120.05 of the Penal Law, as pertinent, provides that “ A person is guilty of assault in the second degree when: 1. With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person”. The court’s instructions omitted any definition or explanation of “ serious *1056physical injury” (see Penal Law, § 10.00), an element o£ said crime for which defendant was indicted and of which he has been found guilty, despite a specific request therefor. The failure to charge this component of the crime, particularly where the seriousness of the injuries was disputed and where assault in the third degree was an includable crime, constituted fundamental and prejudicial error *(People*v. *Lupo,*305 N. Y. 448, 449; *People*v. *Best,*253 App. Div. 491, 493). The defense of justification -(Penal Law, § 35.10) having been raised by defendant, it was incumbent upon the court to instruct the jury as to the People’s burden of disproving said defense (which was not an affirmative one) beyond a reasonable doubt (Penal Law, § 25.00, subd. 1; Practice Commentary by Denser and McQuillan, McKinney’s Cons. Laws of N. Y., Book 39, Penal Law 25.00, pp. 44-45), especially since a request for such a charge was made and this defense, probably, was the principal issue in the case. The court’s charge was also deficient in not marshalling or referring to the evidence to an extent that was necessary to explain the application of the law to the facts *(of. People*v. *Odell,*230 N. Y. 481, 488; *People*v. *Fanning,*131 N. Y. 659, 663; *People*v. *Conigliaro,*20 A D 2d 930; *People*v. *Tisdale,*18 A D 2d 274, 277; see Criminal Procedure Law, § 300.10, subd. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1971). Such a summary would have aided the jury in differentiating assault in the second and third degrees, which from the jury’s request was a cause of concern, and in evaluating the defense of justification. Appellant, not having appealed from the order transferring the proceeding from Family Court to County Court, may not complain on this appeal of an alleged defect in the hearing in Family Court *(People*v. *Gemmill,*34 A D 2d 177). It also appears that appellant did not move for reconsideration and rescission of said order under subdivision (b) of section 816 of the Family Court Act. Judgment reversed, on the law, and a new trial ordered. Reynolds, J. P., Aulisi, Staley, Jr., Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Cooke, J.
Exhibit 10.10


 


ESPEY MFG. & ELECTRONICS CORP.

DIRECTOR CONTINGENT SEVERANCE COMPENSATION AGREEMENT


 


This AGREEMENT is dated as of March 2, 2018 by
and between ESPEY MFG. & ELECTRONICS CORP., a New York corporation (the “Corporation”) and the undersigned member
of the Corporation’s Board of Directors (the “Director”).


 


Recitals


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Corporation
has adopted the Director Contingent Severance Compensation Program (the “Program”), attached hereto as Exhibit A, which
provides for certain contingent severance payment rights to the Director, as well as other individuals currently serving as non-executive
directors of the Corporation;


WHEREAS, the Program provides that it shall be
evidenced by individual agreements between each director eligible for contingent severance payments and the Corporation;


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing
promises and covenants set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:


1.       Director
shall be a participant in the Program, as the same may be amended by the Board of Directors from time to time, and shall be entitled
to the contingent severance payments on the terms and conditions as set forth therein, provided that no amendment shall materially
reduce benefits or increase Director’s obligations without Director’s written consent.


2.       If
the Corporation breaches the terms and conditions of the Program, this Agreement shall be specifically enforceable by Director,
who shall also be entitled to the recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees and the other costs of enforcement.


3.       This
Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors, assigns, heirs
and beneficiaries.


4.       This
Agreement supersedes the Retired Director Compensation Program and Mandatory Retirement Agreement between Director and the Corporation
dated as of May 10, 2011.


 


[signatures appear on the next page]




    12 


     

    


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this
Agreement to be executed as of the date first above written.


	 	ESPEY MFG. & ELECTRONICS CORP.
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Patrick T. Enright, Jr.
	 	 	Name:	Patrick T. Enright, Jr.
	 	 	Title:	President and Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 	 
	 	DIRECTOR
	 	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Alvin O. Sabo
	 	Alvin O. Sabo


 




 






    13
Martin, Michael (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Devany, Dennis (OST) 

Monday, February 06, 2012 3:44 PM 

Martin, Michael (OST) 

FW: DOT Order 2011 -11 -28 

•11 1 iV l 

^^l-'RPORTATiON 

../::TOPr:RATiO^^S 

I fE8 - 8 P :2: 50 

From: Bob Karns rmailto:bob@sovereiqnairinc.com1 

Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:20 PM 

To: Devany, Dennis (OST); Chris Fogg; Dana J. Reed; Garry Douglas; Lynn Parker; Ms Ruth Eveland; Scott Wardwell; 

Theresa Fowler and Valerie Lunn; James Bennett; Chris Kreig 

Subject: DOT Order 2011-11-28 

Mr/ DeVany, 

Sovereign Air would at this time like to withdrawing its proposals to provide EAS service at - Bar Harbor, 

Maine ( Docket DOT-OST-2011-0185 ) - Presque Isle, Maine ( Docket DOT-OST-2000-8012 ) -

Plattsburgh, New York ( Docket DOT-OST-2003-14783 ). 

Thank You 

Robert Kams 

VP Sovereign Air Inc.