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



EXHIBIT 32
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  1.
    
    This Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and2.
    
    The information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant at the dates and for
the periods shown in such report.
  By:
    
    /s/ James Benenson, Jr.James Benenson, Jr.
    
    
    
    Date: August 11, 2006Chairman of the Board of Directors,President and Chief Executive OfficerBy:
    
    /s/ John V. CurciJohn V. Curci
    
    
    
    Date: August 11, 2006Vice-President, Treasurer & Chief Financial OfficerPrincipal Accounting Officer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained
by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
 The certification, which accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which it relates, is not deemed filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any
filing of the Registrant under the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.
exv10w8






Exhibit 10.8




DOVER CORPORATION




DATE:




TO:




FROM:




SUBJ: SSAR Grant




Here are the details for your SSAR grant.



Number of shares of Dover Common Stock -

SSAR base price per share -

Date of Grant –

Expiration Date -



Your SSAR is subject to all of the terms and provisions of the Plan, which terms and provisions are
expressly incorporated into and made a part of your SSAR award as if set forth in full herein. A
copy of the Plan is included with this award agreement.



In addition, your SSAR is subject to the following:



1. Your SSAR is subject to earlier termination as provided in the Plan, for example, upon
termination of employment prior to the expiration date.



2. It is your responsibility to keep track of your SSAR grants and to ensure that you exercise
your SSARs before they expire. Dover will not remind or notify you that your SSAR is nearing its
expiration date.



3. The earliest date on which the SSAR may be exercised is the third anniversary of the Grant Date.
Earlier exercise may be permitted in the event of a Change in Control or death or disability as
provided in the Plan. No payment is required to exercise a SSAR.



4. Upon exercise of your SSARs, you will be entitled to receive from Dover that number of whole
shares of Dover Common Stock equal in value, on the date of exercise of the SSARs, to the excess of
(A) the value of a share of Dover Common Stock on the date of exercise of the SSARs multiplied by
the number of SSARs being exercised over (B) the sum of (i) the per share base price of the SSARs
being exercised multiplied by the number of SSARs being exercised, plus (ii) unless you elect to
pay such tax in cash,


 









 






 any amount of tax that must be
withheld in connection with such exercise. Fractional shares shall be disregarded.



5. By accepting this award, you consent to the transfer of any information relating to your
participation in the Plan to Dover and its affiliates.



6. Your SSAR is not transferable by you other than by will or the laws of descent and
distribution.



7. Dover and your employer reserve the right to amend, modify, or terminate the Plan at any time
in their discretion without notice.



Please acknowledge receipt of a copy of the Plan and your agreement to the terms and conditions set
forth herein and therein by signing and returning one copy of this award agreement. This award
agreement shall only become effective upon receipt by Dover of your signed copy of this agreement.




	 	 	 
	 

	 	 
	Employee

	 	Vice President
	 
	 	 
	Date
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA- 20/{,.0?ZO Directorate Identifier: -AD C20itf-,.;0t(-/q2-AP 

If you make changes to the values in /he !able below, you must ensure the totals update according~y. (l 

they do not, click (or Tab) i11to and then out<?[ the changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) 

Do (include cost {labor+ u.s. for U.S. Fleet not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Groups 1-4: vrfi Yll ~wv ~ s~ {l-12 "- ~ 111 tv 

Hardware and 23.0 $1,286 t ' ) ~ 7 53.., '11 . 

software changes 

Group 5: ELMS2 

8.0 ., "1\0.lir> \ (~ ~~ ~1 (j{ 4 .U.Oi t 

software update 

'· I) ( ll <: t Hf < i ( I \ 

~ ~'""!) 1~ 3 \ \ } ,}q ~l 3 91 ~ ' ,I ' ;)( 

i ft• ! "' i?h(1'0 . -7-r- 14 q ; nl .1 I '11',1 ·· . ; ;' i ' 

I ' •I ( ; ; 

" ' <j . ' 

' ' i PI I ' "; ~ : ' 

' ;; I :' •' ''L I< 

' 1):1 \ 

' '~ l H, ,,, ; ! 

i : ' ~ {F} 

j I : d_Pi 

I) { ~H n(: ' { .• 

' " () (H : <> t•q 

. \ no ~ ' ' i :; • ~ 

;, 1 ) ; 1; ~ ·. , , PU ; • ';i 

! I : ~ (! <h J l' 

! i ) 'l ' n: 

~ I ~ J' ', <! :;· ! ' '' 

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $25,407 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ 

On-Condition Costs: ~ Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

Action (include access, (@$85/hour) (e.g., Inspection, testing, and close- replacement) uo) 

;)'J 

' ' i i \Cfl 

~ ''i !>>l 
Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? ~ 

YES*0 NO~ 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

f I AD . "fi ? • s t 1e s1gnt 1cant. '-... ../ 

YES*O NO~ 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

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

either a Yes or No answer. '- ' 

YESO NO~ 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

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

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode oftransportation? '- ' 

YES*0 NO~ 

*Explanation:
1

Pallarino, Bob

From: Poentis, Aaron Y CIV NAVFAC HI, EV <aaron.poentis@navy.mil>

Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 6:10 PM

To: Richard Takaba (richard.takaba@doh.hawaii.gov); roxanne.kwan@doh.hawaii.gov

Cc: steven.chang@doh.hawaii.gov; stuart.yamada@doh.hawaii.gov; Linder, Steven; Pallarino, 

Bob; Lovgren, Andrew C LCDR, NAVSUP FLCPH C700; Shimabuku, June T. CIV NAVFAC 

HI, EV4; Kishaba, Raelynn I CIV NAVFAC HI, EV4; Tsutsui, Bruce O CIV NAVFAC HI, 

OPHE3

Subject: RED HILL STATUS REPORT - March 10, 2015

Signed By: aaron.poentis@navy.mil

Importance: High

Hi Richard/Roxanne: 

Attached are the updated information for the weekly progress report from Navy Region Hawaii, and the Fleet Logistic 

Center Pearl Harbor for the week of March 10, 2015. In a process to ease reading, only sections with changes will be 

annotated. 

1. Preliminary Work Plan 

Action complete. 

2. Release Response Action Items (initiate immediately, complete as soon as practicable) 

a. Action 1 - Provide a schedule for the ventilation of Tank 5 and an estimated date to commence the investigation 

of release point(s) within Tank 5. 

Action complete. 

b. Action 2 - The rate of vertical migration for the released JP-8 free product is unknown. Information from the 

previously collected basalt cores could be used for initial modeling of vertical migration. This information is necessary to

protect drinking water resources from petroleum contamination. Prepare models for petroleum JP-8 releases of 10,000, 

20,000 and 30,000 gallons from points at 25% intervals from the bottom to the top of Tank 5. 

No change. 

c. Action 3 - Removal of petroleum free product from the area outside the tank will reduce downward migration of 

the released JP-8 free product. Characterization of the free product plume and recovery of free product with increased 

monitoring are required to address this plume. 

No change. 

d. Action 4 - Additional studies and procedures are required to address the potential and impact of any future 

releases from the USTs within the Complex. This will require new financial and personnel resources to complete. 

Funding for the preliminary work plan and all necessary following work is critical. 

d.(1) Groundwater Monitoring Wells 

No change. 
2

d.(2) Site Characterization 

No change. 

d.(3) AOC/SOW 

Discussions are ongoing. 

d.(4) Request for Additional Information 

No change. 

d.(5) BWS/USGS Groundwater Flow Study 

No change. 

Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. 

v/r, 

Aaron
(June 26, 1969)

#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Louise T. Medica, Respondent, and Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Appellant.

Order and judgment, entered January 7, 1969, which denied after trial the application of appellant MVAIC for an order staying arbitration and which adjudged that the claimant-respondent had complied with the conditions of the New York Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Indorsement, unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, without costs or disbursements to either party, the petition granted and claimant permanently stayed from proceeding to arbitration. Claimant seeks damages for injuries claimed to have been sustained when her automobile was allegedly involved in an accident with a “hit-and-run” automobile. She did not report the incident to the police until some 64 hours after the occurrence. The evidence at the hearing failed to establish that the delay beyond the 24 hour reporting period required by section 608 of the Insur*772anee Law was excusable and that report had been made as soon as was reasonably possible in the circumstances. *(Matter of Ithier*v. *MVAIC,*31 A D 2d 616.) Concur — Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.
§ 436.108 Waivers. ( a ) Any Federal agency may submit a written request to the Under Secretary for a waiver from the procedures and requirements of this subpart. The request for a waiver must identify the specific requirements and procedures of this subpart from which a waiver is sought and provide a detailed explanation, including appropriate information or documentation, as to why a waiver should be granted.
( b ) A request for a waiver under this section must be submitted at least 60 days prior to the due date for the required submission.
( c ) A written response to a request for a waiver will be issued by the Under Secretary no later than 30 days from receipt of the request. Such a response will either ( 1 ) grant the request with any conditions determined to be necessary to further the purposes of this subpart,
( 2 ) deny the request based on a determination that the reasons given in the request for a waiver do not establish a need that takes precedence over the futherance of the purposes of this subpart, or
( 3 ) deny the request based on the failure to submit adequate information upon which to grant a waiver.
( d ) A requested waiver may be submitted by the Under Secretary to the “656” Committee for its review and recommendation. The agency official that submitted the request may attend any scheduled meeting of the “656” Committee at which the request is planned to be discussed. The determination to approve or disapprove a request for a waiver shall be made by the Under Secretary.
( e ) Status of the requests for a waiver, the Under Secretary's decisions, and “656” Committee recommendations, will be published, as appropriate, in the DOE annual report to the President, entitled “Energy Management in the Federal Government.”
<Page>

Exhibit No. 12.

Questar Pipeline Company and Subsidiaries
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(Unaudited)

<Table>
<Caption>
                                             12 months ended June 30,
                                               2001          2000
                                             --------      --------
                                             (Dollars in Thousands)
<S>                                          <C>           <C>
Earnings

Income (loss) before income taxes            $ 43,951      ($12,985)
Plus debt expense                              16,808        18,342
Plus allowance for borrowed
   funds used during construction               3,296         2,796
Plus interest portion of rental expense           370           273
                                             --------      --------
                                             $ 64,425      $  8,426
                                             ========      ========
Fixed Charges
Debt expense                                 $ 16,808      $ 18,342
Plus allowance for borrowed
   funds used during construction               3,296         2,796
Plus interest portion of rental expense           370           273
                                             --------      --------
                                             $ 20,474      $ 21,411
                                             ========      ========
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges               3.15          0.39

</Table>
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 19 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 19

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the President 
  should award the Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously to Rick 
Husband, William McCool, Michael Anderson, Kalpana Chawla, David Brown, 
 Laurel Clark, and Ilan Ramon, all of whom died in the destruction of 
                      the space shuttle Columbia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2005

 Mr. Gene Green of Texas submitted the following resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the President 
  should award the Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously to Rick 
Husband, William McCool, Michael Anderson, Kalpana Chawla, David Brown, 
 Laurel Clark, and Ilan Ramon, all of whom died in the destruction of 
                      the space shuttle Columbia.

Whereas Rick Husband, William McCool, Michael Anderson, Kalpana Chawla, David 
        Brown, Laurel Clark, and Ilan Ramon volunteered for and were chosen to 
        be the crew for mission STS-107 on space shuttle Columbia;
Whereas it is a brave and heroic act to volunteer and be selected for such a 
        mission;
Whereas the Columbia experienced a failure and was destroyed over the States of 
        Texas and Louisiana as it approached to land on February 1, 2003;
Whereas the crew members on Columbia risked their lives in space exploration for 
        the betterment of mankind; and
Whereas the selfless dedication and courage demonstrated by these astronauts 
        should be honored in the highest manner: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the President should award the Presidential Medal of Freedom 
posthumously to Rick Husband, William McCool, Michael Anderson, Kalpana 
Chawla, David Brown, Laurel Clark, and Ilan Ramon, all of whom died in 
the explosion of the space shuttle Columbia.
                                 <all>
```
#### KNIPE, Respondent, v. KISSICK, Appellant

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 22, 1906.)

Action by William Knipe, as administrator, etc., against AViliiam A. Kissick.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
# PGI SUBPART 13.3 – SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION METHODS

*(Updated January 11, 2022 in accordance with PROCLTR 2021-15)*

**Parent topic:**PGI PART 13 – SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES

## PGI 13.390 Simplified indefinite-delivery contracts (SIDCs).

(a)(1)(S-90)(A) *Establishment of guaranteed minimum purchase requirements and obligations*. Procuring organizations shall review SIDC awards and report the results in accordance with mandatory PGI 16.504(a)(1)(S-90)(B).
PGI 208.7403 Acquisition procedures.       (1) After requirements are determined, the requiring official shall review the information at the ESI website to determine if the required commercial software or related services are available from DoD inventory (e.g., Golden Disks and DoD-wide software maintenance agreements). If the software or services are available, the requiring official shall fulfill the requirement from the DoD inventory.          (2) If the required commercial software or related services are not in the DoD inventory, and not on an ESA, the contracting officer or requiring official may fulfill the requirement by other means. Existing ESAs are listed on the ESI website.          (3) If the commercial software or related services are on an ESA, the contracting officer or requiring official shall review the terms and conditions and prices in accordance with otherwise applicable source selection requirements.          (4) If an ESA’s terms and conditions and prices represent the best value to the Government, the contracting officer or requiring official shall fulfill the requirement for software or services through the ESA.          (5) If existing ESAs do not represent the best value to the Government, the software product manager (SPM) shall be given an opportunity to provide the same or a better value to the Government under the ESAs before the contracting officer or requiring official may continue with alternate acquisition methods.          (i) The contracting officer or requiring official shall notify the SPM of specific concerns about existing ESA terms and conditions or prices through the ESI webpage.          (ii) The SPM shall consider adjusting, within the scope of the ESA, terms and conditions or prices to provide the best value to the customer.          (A) Within 3 working days, the SPM shall—          (*1*) Update the ESA;          (*2*) Provide an estimated date by which the update will be accomplished; or          (*3*) Inform the contracting officer or requiring official that no change will be made to the ESA.          (B) If the SPM informs the contracting officer or requiring official that no change will be made to the ESA terms and conditions or prices, the contracting officer or requiring official may fulfill the requirement by other means.          (C) If the SPM does not respond within 3 working days or does not plan to adjust the ESA within 90 days, the contracting officer or requiring official may fulfill the requirement by other means.          (iii) A management official designated by the department or agency may waive the requirement to obtain commercial software or related services through an ESA after the steps in paragraphs (5)(i) and (5)(ii)(A) of this section are complete. The rationale for use of an alternate source shall be included in the waiver request and shall be provided to the SPM.    **Parent topic:** PGI 208.74 -ENTERPRISE SOFTWARE AGREEMENTS
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 5, 2018.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D18- 296

Lower Tribunal Nos. 15-14939 & 16-20697

________________



### The State of Florida, Department of Revenue,

Appellant,

vs.



### In Re: Deborah Claudia Ezeta vs. Gregory

Francois Frederic De La Begassiere,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David H.

Young, Judge.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein (Tallahassee),

Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Deborah Marks, PLLC, and Deborah B. Marks, for appellee Gregory

Francois Frederic de La Begassiere.

Before SCALES, LUCK and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.Gregory Francois Frederic de La Begassiere, the father, petitioned the trial

court for a modification of monthly child support for his two minor children. After

a hearing on January 10, 2018, the trial court ordered a downward modification

from $1028.88 to $800.00 per month. Because de La Begassiere had left his job as

a high school teacher in South Florida and returned to his native France to continue

his own schooling, the trial court found that he was underemployed and imputed

income to him to arrive at the $800.00 figure. The State of Florida Department of

Revenue (Department), an intervenor below, appeals. Department maintains that

the trial court did not comply or make findings consistent with section 61.30 of the

Florida Statutes.

The record of the January 10, 2018 hearing reveals that the trial court and

the parties converted the hearing into a de facto settlement conference, during

which Department was represented by counsel who did not object to the downward

modification amount or the procedure the trial court employed to ascertain this

amount. We affirm the trial court’s order of January 10, 2018, because any alleged

error was not preserved. Chaiken v. Lewis

, 754 So. 2d 118, 118 (Fla. 3d DCA

2000) (holding that a party that acquiesced to a trial court determination did not

preserve the issue for appellate review); Kitchens By Design v. Confino

, 687 So.

2d 364, 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (“We affirm the final judgment under review as

2the record does not reflect that the specific claim of error made on appeal was

argued and presented to the lower court.”).

Affirmed.

3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

 ______________________________

JAMES TYRONE EDWARDS, #244 859 *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 3:06-CV-740-MHT

SGT. MOORE, et al., *

Defendants. *

 __________________________________

ORDER

Upon review of the file in this case, and for good cause, it is

ORDERED that on or before September 25, 2006 Plaintiff shall show cause why this

case should not be dismissed for his failure to pay the initial partial filing fee in compliance

with the order entered on August 23, 2006. ( Doc. No. 8.) In filing his response, Plaintiff

shall advise the court of whether he authorized prison officials to withdraw funds from his

prison account for payment of the initial partial filing fee, whether he has simply chosen not

to submit the filing fee, or whether he is unable to comply at this time with the order

directing payment of an initial partial filing fee. If Plaintiff does not wish to continue with

this cause of action, he shall so advise the court and file a motion to dismiss. 

Plaintiff is cautioned that his failure to file a response to this order will result in a

Recommendation that this case be dismissed. 

Case 3:06-cv-00740-MHT-SRW Document 9 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

DONE, this 15th day of September, 2006.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00740-MHT-SRW Document 9 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 2 of 2