alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

       In connection with the quarterlyreport of CNB Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, W.Jennings Duncan, President and Chief Executive Officer of CNB Corporation,certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

 
| 1.     | The  above-listed Form 10-Q 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 above-listed Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all  material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the  Company. |
| Date:   November 9, 2007 | /s/W. Jennings Duncan                       W. Jennings Duncan  President and Chief Executive Officer |
|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                               |                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
Editorial Note on Subpart A of Part 989
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 989 appear at 83 FR 53973, Oct. 26, 2018.

§ 989.23 File. *File* means transmit or deliver to the Secretary or Committee, as the case may be, and such act shall be deemed to have been accomplished at the time: ( a ) Of actual receipt by the Secretary or Committee in the event of personal delivery;
( b ) Of receipt at the office of the telegraph company, in case submission is by telegram; or
( c ) Shown by the postmark, in case submission is by mail.
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.907 Notice of intent to introduce restricted data or national security information. ( a ) If, at the time of publication of a notice of hearing, it appears to the staff that it will be impracticable for it to avoid the introduction of Restricted Data or National Security Information into the proceeding, it will file a notice of intent to introduce Restricted Data or National Security Information.
( b ) If, at the time of filing of an answer to the notice of hearing it appears to the party filing that it will be impracticable for the party to avoid the introduction of Restricted Data or National Security Information into the proceeding, the party shall state in the answer a notice of intent to introduce Restricted Data or National Security Information into the proceeding.
( c ) If, at any later stage of a proceeding, it appears to any party that it will be impracticable to avoid the introduction of Restricted Data or National Security Information into the proceeding, the party shall give to the other parties prompt written notice of intent to introduce Restricted Data or National Security Information into the proceeding.
( d ) Restricted Data or National Security Information shall not be introduced into a proceeding after publication of a notice of hearing unless a notice of intent has been filed in accordance with § 2.908, except as permitted in the discretion of the presiding officer when it is clear that no party or the public interest will be prejudiced.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
             Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
                    ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Quarterly Report of SEDONA Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the
period ending September 30, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Marco A. Emrich, President
and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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.

/s/Marco A. Emrich
-------------------------------------
Marco A. Emrich
President and Chief Executive Officer



November 14, 2003













                                       22
Subpart 1525.1 - Buy American Act - Supplies

[Reserved]

Parent topic: PART 1525 - FOREIGN ACQUISITION
#### § 986.91 Liability.

No member or alternate of the Council nor any employee or agent thereof, shall be held personally responsible, either individually or jointly with others, in any way whatsoever, to any party under this part or to any other person for errors in judgment, mistakes, or other acts, either of commission or omission, as such member, alternate, agent or employee, except for acts of dishonesty, willful misconduct, or gross negligence. The Council may purchase liability insurance for its members and officers.
# FILED
May 4, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT NASHVILLE STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 01C

01-9703-CC-00103 Appellee, ) ) HICKMAN COUNTY VS. ) ) BRIAN KEITH

HARDING, ) ) Appellant. ) O R D E R This Court released its opini on in the above-styled c ase, affirming the judgment, on February 18, 1998. Subseq uently, counsel for the appell ant filed ati mely motion to withdraw pursu ant to Rule 14, Tennessee Supreme Court Rules. It appears that counsel’s notice to theappellant of her intent to withdraw was sent to an incorrect address and was not received by the appellant. Moreover, through inadvertence, the Court did not enter an order acting on the

motion. Subsequently, mandate was issued on April 30, 1998.

Because it appears that the a ppellan t was not notified of his attorney’s intention of withdrawing as required by Rule 14,the Court finds that it is necessary to recall mandate and reenter our opinion.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that mandate, issued on April 30,1998, is recalled, and this Court’s opinion, entered on February 18, 1998, is hereby vacated and shall be reentered
as of the date of this o rder. The public de fender ’s offic e shall ha ve 14 days from the date of this order in whic

h to file a renewed motion to w ithdraw as

counsel pursuant to Rule 14, Tennessee Supreme Court Rules. Other wise, co unsel shall file an application for permission to appeal tothe Tennessee Supreme Court on behalf of the appellant pursuant to T.R.A.P. 11. The a ppellant may remain on the same bo nd pending the filing and disposition of an application for permission to appeal. In default of such bond, he shall be remande d to the cu stody of t he sherif f of Hick man Coun ty.

ENTER this the ____ day of May , 1998.
PER CURIAM
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

CRISFIELD, LAWRENCE, and GASTON,

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Tara E. Hudson

Sergeant (E-5), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

No. 201800138

Decided: 23 October 2019.

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary. 

Military Judges: Lieutenant Colonel R. D. Merrill, USMC (arraignment); Lieutenant Colonel R. Mattioli, USMC (motions and trial). Sentence adjudged 7 December 2017 by a special court-martial convened 

at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, consisting of a military 

judge sitting alone. Sentence approved by convening authority: reduction to pay grade E-1, confinement for eight months, and a badconduct discharge.

For Appellant: Lieutenant Jeremy J. Wall, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Lieutenant Jonathan Todd, JAGC, USN; Major Kelli A. 

O’Neil, USMC.

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent, but may be 

cited as persuasive authority under NMCCA Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 30.2.

_________________________
United States v. Hudson, No. 201800138

2

PER CURIAM:

The appellant was found guilty by a military judge, contrary to her pleas, 

of three specifications of unauthorized absence, two specifications of disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, five specifications of contempt 

toward a superior non-commissioned officer, one specification of disobeying a 

superior non-commissioned officer, and one specification of making a false 

official statement, in violation of Articles 86, 89, 91, and 107, Uniform Code of 

Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 886, 889, 891, and 907 (2016).

The appellant asserts three assignments of error: (1) her convictions are 

legally and factually insufficient because the government’s witnesses were 

biased against her; (2) the military judge erred in denying in part her Article 

13, UCMJ, motion for unlawful pretrial punishment; and (3) her sentence is 

inappropriately severe given that her offenses were all military-specific and 

are normally handled administratively. All three assignments of error are 

raised pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982). 

Having carefully considered the assignments of error, we find them to be 

without merit. See United States v. Clifton, 35 M.J. 79 (C.M.A. 1992); United 

States v. Matias, 25 M.J. 356, 363 (C.M.A. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 968 

(1988).

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and no error materially prejudicial to the appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Arts. 

59 and 66, UCMJ. Accordingly, the findings and sentence as approved by the 

convening authority are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court
# Subpart 424.1 - Protection of Individual Privacy

**Parent topic:**PART 424 - PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

## 424.103 Procedures.

USDA regulations implementing the Privacy Act are found in 7 CFR, subtitle A, part 1, subpart G. Contracting officers shall follow these regulations when responding to requests for information or awarding contracts that will involve the design, development, or operation of a system of records on individuals to accomplish agency functions.   

## 424.104 Contract clauses.

When applicable, the contracting officer shall insert the clause at 452.224-70, Confidentiality of Information, in contracts involving confidential information.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

Nos. 95-10041 & 95-10238 

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BENITA ALCALA,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:94-CR-043-R

- - - - - - - - - -

May 21, 1996

Before WIENER, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Benita Alcala argues that principles of double jeopardy bar

her prosecution because she has forfeited $71,000 in cash plus

jewelry appraised at $38,259. Alcala's forfeiture of $71,000 was 

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), which provides for the

forfeiture of proceeds of drug sales or funds traceable to such

proceeds and, thus, was not "punishment" implicating principles

of double jeopardy. 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6); United States v.
Nos. 95-10041 & 95-10238

-2-

Tilley, 18 F.3d 295, 297 n.1 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct.

573, 574 (1994). The court declines to consider Alcala's

argument concerning the alleged forfeiture of jewelry because she

has not supported her claim with documentation or information as

to the nature of the alleged forfeiture. Alcala's conclusional

statements that her prosecution is in violation of the Eighth

Amendment are insufficient to preserve this issue for appellate

review. Brinkmann v. Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987);

FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(6).

AFFIRMED.
tranemployagmtamend2.htm


    Back to Form 10-K

      Exhibit
10.40.2


      EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT FOR THOMAS L. TRAN,

      AMENDMENT
NO. 2

      


      This Amendment No. 2 to the Employment
Agreement for THOMAS L. TRAN (“Amendment No. 2”) is made,
effective as of December 18, 2009, by and among WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS, INC., a
Delaware corporation (“WellCare”), COMPREHENSIVE
HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC., a Florida corporation (the “Corporation”), and THOMAS L.
TRAN, an individual (“Executive”), with respect to
the following facts and circumstances:

       

      RECITALS

      


      WHEREAS, Executive, WellCare
and the Corporation previously entered into an Employment Agreement on July 17,
2008, which was subsequently amended on March 10, 2009 (as amended, the “Employment Agreement”);
and

      


      WHEREAS, Executive, WellCare
and the Corporation desire to further amend the Employment Agreement regarding
the payment of an expense allowance.

      


      Agreement:

      


      NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the agreements contained herein and of such other good and
valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which Executive acknowledges,
WellCare, the Corporation and Executive, intending to be legally bound, agree as
follows:

      


      1.           A
new Section 1.5 shall be added to the Employment Agreement as
follows:

      


      Commencing
on January 1, 2010 and continuing through December 31, 2010, Executive shall
receive an allowance of $2,500 per month for expenses incurred in connection
with travel between Hartford, Connecticut and Tampa, Florida.

      


      2.           The
provisions of this Amendment No. 2 may be amended and waived only with the prior
written consent of the parties hereto.  This Amendment No. 2 may be
executed and delivered in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original and together shall constitute one and the same
instrument.

      


      3.           Except
as set forth in this Amendment No. 2, the Employment Agreement shall remain
unchanged and shall continue in full force and effect.


      


      *  *  *  *  *


      
        
           


        

        
           


          
            

          

        

        
           


        

      


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties hereto have executed and delivered this Amendment No. 2 on the date
first written above.

      


      WELLCARE

      


      WELLCARE
HEALTH PLANS, INC.

      


      


      By:   /s/ Heath
Schiesser                                                       

      Name:  Heath
Schiesser

      Title:  President
and CEO

      


      


      CORPORATION

      


      COMPREHENSIVE
HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC.

      


      


      By:   /s/ Heath
Schiesser                                                       

      Name:  Heath
Schiesser

      Title:  President
and CEO

      


      


      EXECUTIVE

      


      


      /s/ Thomas L.
Tran                                                      

      THOMAS L.
TRAN

      


2
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOELSONGS, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 1:06cv774-MHT

) 

SHELLEY BROADCASTING )

COMPANY, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion to withdraw (doc. no.

30) is granted.

DONE, this the 16th day of July, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00774-MHT-SRW Document 31 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 1 of 1
1509.000 Scope of part.

This part implements FAR part 9 and provides policy and procedures pertaining to contractor's

responsibility; debarment, suspension, and ineligibility; and organizational conflicts of interest.

Parent topic: PART 1509 - CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANGELO MALDONADO,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 48 EM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of November, 2022, the Application for Permission to File 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is GRANTED.

It is NOTED that Attorney Gina A. Amoriello was evidently negligent in failing to 

file a Petition for Allowance of Appeal by the deadline established in the August 24, 2022 

order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. 

Attorney Amoriello is DIRECTED to file a Petition for Allowance of Appeal within 

15 days.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06mj72-MEF

)

JOSHUA WAYNE HESTER )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Defendant’s Motion to Continue (Doc. #13), filed on

August 7, 2006, it is hereby 

ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the time of the

hearing is changed from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.

DONE this the 10th day of August, 2006.

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 15 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 982
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 61 FR 17559, Apr. 22, 1996.

§ 982.61 Assessments. ( a ) For each marketing year, the Secretary shall fix an assessment rate per pound of hazelnuts handled and withheld, including the creditable weight of ungraded restricted hazelnuts withheld pursuant to § 982.51 and, when subject to regulation pursuant to § 982.45, the inshell equivalent of shelled hazelnuts certified which are produced from other than restricted hazelnuts that will provide sufficient funds to meet the authorized expenses and reserve requirements of the Board. At any time during or after a marketing year when he determines, on the basis of a Board recommendation or other information, that a different rate is necessary, the Secretary may modify the assessment rate and the new rate shall be applicable to all such hazelnuts. Each handler shall pay to the Board on demand, assessments on all such assessable hazelnuts at the rate fixed by the Secretary, less any amounts credited pursuant to § 982.58. The Board shall impose a late payment charge on any handler who fails to pay his assessment within the time prescribed by the Board. In the event the handler thereafter fails to pay the amount outstanding, including the late payment charge, within the prescribed time, the Board shall impose an additional charge in the form of interest on such outstanding amount. The rate of such charges shall be prescribed by the Board, with the approval of the Secretary.
( b ) In order to provide funds for the administration of the provisions of this part during the first part of a fiscal period before sufficient operating income is available from assessments on the current year's shipments, the Board may accept the payment of assessments in advance, and may also borrow money for such purpose. Further, payment discounts may be authorized by the Board upon the approval of the Secretary to handlers making such advance assessment payments.
[24 FR 6185, Aug. 1, 1959. Redesignated at 26 FR 12751, Dec. 30, 1961, as amended at 37 FR 589, Jan. 14, 1972; 51 FR 29550, Aug. 19, 1986; 61 FR 17560, Apr. 22, 1996]
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 232

Permitting official photographs of the House of Representatives to be taken 

while the House is in actual session on a date designated by the Speaker. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2005

Mr. NEY (for himself and Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

APRIL 26, 2005

The Committee on House Administration discharged; considered and agreed 

to 

RESOLUTION

Permitting official photographs of the House of Representatives to be taken while the House is in actual session 

on a date designated by the Speaker.

1 Resolved, That on such date as the Speaker of the 

2 House of Representatives may designate, official photo3 graphs of the House may be taken while the House is in 

4 actual session. Payment for the costs associated with tak5 ing, preparing, and distributing such photographs may be 
2

•HRES 232 IH 

1 made from the applicable accounts of the House of Rep2 resentatives.

Æ
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

J.B., a minor child, by and )

through his next friend, )

Addie Ward, on behalf of )

himself and all others )

similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv755-MHT

) 

WALTER WOOD, in his )

individual capacity, )

)

Defendant. )

J.B., a minor child, by and )

through his next friend, )

Addie Ward, on behalf of )

himself and all others )

similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv908-MHT

) 

WALTER WOOD, in his )

individual capacity, )

)

Defendant. )

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 26 Filed 03/23/2007 Page 1 of 2
ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion to clarify and

designate application (doc. no. 25) is granted.

DONE, this the 23rd day of March, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 26 Filed 03/23/2007 Page 2 of 2