alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

    Certifications Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
           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 quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Youbet.com,
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Charles F. Champion, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Gary W.
Sproule, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


    October 31, 2003            By:  /s/ Charles F. Champion
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Charles F. Champion
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer


    October 31, 2003            By:  /s/ Gary W. Sproule
                                         -----------------------------------
                                         Gary W. Sproule
                                         Chief Financial Officer









A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
documentation authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Youbet.com, Inc. and
will be retained by Youbet.com, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification "accompanies" the Quarterly Report on 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 Company under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (whether made before or after the date of the Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB, irrespective of an general incorporation language contained in such
filing).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     22,605
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               176,393
<PP&E>                                         525,251
<DEPRECIATION>                                 106,027
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 595,617
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          854,748
<BONDS>                                         35,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,738,949
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,033,080)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   595,617
<SALES>                                         35,277
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,277
<CGS>                                           22,843
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,843
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               575,112
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,491
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (572,169)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (572,169)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (572,169)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)


</TABLE>
The exemption would allow the petitioner to operate the 3DR Iris+ (UAS) to conduct aerial

photography and videography for real estate, homeowners, realtors, home builders, home contractors, and/or home inspectors for real estate marketing and inspections of home exteriors, surveying, marine photo and video, agriculture, and special events. I petition the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from part 21 subpart H, §§ 45.23(b), 45.29 61.113(a) and (b), 61.133, 61.23(a); 91.7(a),91.9(b)(2 ), 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.205(b), 91.215, 91.401

– 91.417 part 91 subpart E of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations. The petitioner also asks for an exemption from FAA Notice 8900.227 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Operat ional Approval, paragraphs 16(c)(4) and 16(e)(1).
Exhibit 99.1


                             CERTIFICATE 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Factory 2-U Stores, Inc.
(the  "Company")  for the  quarter  ended  August  3,  2002,  as filed  with the
Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Michael M.
Searles, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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
     aspects,  the financial  condition of the Company as of the dates indicated
     and result of operations of the Company for the periods indicated.




                                           /s/ Michael M. Searles
                                           ----------------------
                                           Michael M. Searles
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           September 17, 2002
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 Preferred Voice, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mary G. Merritt,
      Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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 result of operations of the Company.











/s/
      Mary G. Merritt


Mary
      G.
      Merritt


Principal
      Executive Officer


Principal
      Financial Officer


July
      18,
      2006
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CHAZ CUMMINGS

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 22

- 2265

LT Case No. 2018

- 102348

- CFDL

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed June 23, 2023

Appeal from the Circui t Court for Volusia County

, Dawn D. Nichols , Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Robert J. Pearce, III, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM

.2 In this Anders 1 appeal, we affirm Chaz Cummings’ judgment and

sentence with one exception. The trial court erred in assessing investigative

costs under section 938.27(1), Florida Statu t es (2021), in the absence of a

request from the State. See Richards v. State , 288 So. 3d 574, 577 (Fla.

2020) (“[T]he State must request investigative costs to make a defendant

liable for those costs . . . .” (citation omitted)). We remand for the tr ial court to

enter an amended judgment without including these investigative costs. In all

other respects, we affirm. See State v. Dortch , 317 So. 3d 1074, 1084 (Fla.

2021) (“[T]here is no fundamental

- error exception to the preservation

requirement of [ Flo rida Rule of Appellate Procedure] 9.140(b)(2)(A) (ii)(c).”).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions.

JAY , HARRIS and MACIVER , JJ., concur.

1 Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7610 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to clarify that utility line 

technicians qualify as emergency response providers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2024 

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana (for himself and Mr. NORCROSS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to clarify 

that utility line technicians qualify as emergency response providers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Linemen Legacy Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROVIDERS. 

6 Section 2(6) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

7 (6 U.S.C. 101(6)) is amended— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘includes Federal’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘includes— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7610 IH

1 ‘‘(A) Federal’’; 

2 (2) by striking the period at the end and insert3 ing ‘‘; and’’; and 

4 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(B) utility line technicians responding to 

6 a major disaster or an emergency declared by 

7 the President under section 501 of the Robert 

8 T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency As9 sistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5191).’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### Thomas F. McCarthy et al., Executors (Estate of Timothy F. McCarthy) *v.*Marion McCarthy

King, C. J., Alcorn, House, Thim and Ryan, Js.

Argued November 12

decided November 13, 1969

*Thomas L. Brayton,*for the appellants (plaintiffs).

*Vincent Matasavage,*for the appellee (defendant).

Per Curiam.

In the light of *Prince*v. *Sheffield,*158 Conn. 286, 299, 300, 259 A.2d 621, there is error. The judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to the Superior Court for a new trial of the appeal from the Probate Court.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-10157

Conference Calendar

 

GEORGE D. FARQUHAR,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

K.J. WENDT, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:03-CV-1873-L

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

George D. Farquhar, federal prisoner # 28074-077, appeals

the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition

challenging his conviction for mail fraud. He argues that he

is entitled to proceed pursuant to § 2241 because the 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 remedy is inadequate given that his claims could not be

raised in a successive § 2255 motion and, further, because Neder

v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) establishes that he was

convicted of a nonexistent offense.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 23, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 04-10157

-2-

A prior unsuccessful § 2255 motion, or the inability to

meet the requirements for filing a successive § 2255 motion,

does not make the § 2255 remedy inadequate, however. See

Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Additionally, Farquhar cannot show that his claims were

foreclosed at the time of his § 2255 motion because Neder was

decided before that filing. See Reyes-Requena v. United States,

243 F.3d 893, 903-04 (5th Cir. 2001); Neder, 527 U.S. at 1. 

Farquhar therefore has not shown the § 2255 remedy inadequate,

and he cannot proceed pursuant to § 2241. 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.10(a)


HORACE MANN SERVICE CORPORATION


EXECUTIVE CHANGE IN CONTROL PLAN


 


SCHEDULE A PARTICIPANTS


 


Note: The effective date of entry shall
be subject to Section 4.2(a)


 


	NAME OR TITLE	 	EFFECTIVE DATE OF
	 	 	PARTICIPATION*
	 	 	 
	 	TIER I PARTICIPANTS	 
	President and CEO	 	May 16, 2013
	 	 	 
	 	TIER II PARTICIPANTS	
	EVP, Life & Retirement	 	February 15, 2012
	EVP, Property & Casualty	 	July 1, 2015
	SVP and Controller/Acting CFO	 	**
	 	 	
	 	TIER III PARTICIPANTS	
	SVP, Field Operations and Distribution	 	August 13, 2015***


 


*Subject to acceptance within 30 days of
effective date of participation.


**Subject to Section 4.2(b) of the Plan.


***
On April 13, 2017, the Company announced that Kelly Stacy, head of field operations, is leaving the
Company effective April 21, 2017. Mr. Stacy’s current responsibilities will be absorbed by existing members of the management
team.


 


Last updated: January 30, 2017
Editorial Note on Part 170
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 170 appear at 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001, and 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

§ 170.255 Part 7 of a GRAS notice: List of supporting data and information in your GRAS notice. ( a ) In part 7 of your GRAS notice, you must include a list of all of the data and information that you discuss in Part 6 of your GRAS notice to provide a basis for your view that the notified substance is safe under the conditions of its intended use as described in accordance with § 170.250(a)(1).
( b ) You must specify which data and information that you list in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section are generally available, and which data and information are not generally available.
§ 74.2205 D&C Green No. 5. ( a ) *Identity and specifications.* The color additive D&C Green No. 5 shall conform in identity and specifications to the requirements of § 74.1205 (a)(1) and (b)(2).
( b ) *Uses and restrictions.* D&C Green No. 5 may be safely used for coloring cosmetics generally, including cosmetics intended for use in the area of the eye, in amounts consistent with current good manufacturing practice.
( c ) *Labeling requirements.* The label of the color additive shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( d ) *Certification.* All batches of D&C Green No. 5 shall be certified in accordance with regulations in part 80 of this chapter.
[47 FR 24285, June 4, 1982, as amended at 59 FR 40805, Aug. 10, 1994]
§ 169.180 Vanilla-vanillin extract. ( a ) Vanilla-vanillin extract conforms to the definition and standard of identity and is subject to any requirement for label statement of ingredients prescribed for vanilla extract by § 169.175, except that for each unit of vanilla constituent, as defined in § 169.3(c), contained therein, the article also contains not more than 1 ounce of added vanillin.
( b ) The specified name of the food is “Vanilla-vanillin extract __-fold” or “__-fold vanilla-vanillin extract”, followed immediately by the statement “contains vanillin, an artificial flavor (or flavoring)”. The blank in the name is filled in with the whole number (disregarding fractions) expressing the sum of the number of units of vanilla constituent plus the number of ounces of added vanillin per gallon of the article. However, if the strength of the article is less than 2-fold, the term “__-fold” is omitted from the name.
[42 FR 14479, Mar. 15, 1977, as amended at 58 FR 2887, Jan. 6, 1993]
§ 520.816 Epsiprantel. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each tablet contains either 12.5, 25, 50, or 100 milligrams of epsiprantel.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Dogs* — ( i ) *Amount.* 2.5 milligrams per pound of body weight.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* Removal of canine cestodes *Dipylidium caninum* and *Taenia pisiformis.*
( 2 ) *Cats* — ( i ) *Amount.* 1.25 milligrams per pound of body weight.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* Removal of feline cestodes *D.* *caninum* and *T.* *taeniaeformis.*
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[54 FR 50615, Dec. 8, 1989, as amended at 56 FR 50653, Oct. 8, 1991; 60 FR 55659, Nov. 2, 1995; 79 FR 28821, May 20, 2014; 83 FR 64740, Dec. 18, 2018]
§ 571.7 Withdrawal of petition without prejudice. ( a ) In some cases the Commissioner will notify the petitioner that the petition, while technically complete, is inadequate to justify the establishment of a regulation or the regulation requested by petitioner. This may be due to the fact that the data are not sufficiently clear or complete. In such cases, the petitioner may withdraw the petition pending its clarification or the obtaining of additional data. This withdrawal will be without prejudice to a future filing. Upon refiling, the time limitation will begin to run anew from the date of refiling.
( b ) At any time before the order provided for in § 571.100(a) has been forwarded to the Federal Register for publication, the petitioner may withdraw the petition without prejudice to a future filing. Upon refiling the time limitation will begin to run anew.
39171.

#### AUSTIN v. THE STATE.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. “There is no provision of law for the court in the trial of a criminal case to entertain a motion for a judgment of not guilty notwithstanding a verdict of guilty.” *Wilson v. State,*215 Ga. 775 (113 SE2d 607).

2. “That the judge, during the trial of a misdeameanor case, and while the evidence was being submitted, in the presence of and without objection from counsel for the accused, allowed the jury to disburse during a night recess, is not, after a verdict of guilty, cause for a new trial, when there is no evidence of any attempt to influence the jury, or of any improper conduct on their part. [Citing cases].” *Bowdoin v. State,*113 Ga. 1150 (1) (39 SE 478). Accordingly, in the present case where the amended motion for new trial does not disclose the absence of the accused or his counsel at the time the jury was disbursed during the recess, merely concluding that no opportunity to object was given, no motion for a mistrial or any other objection having been made, until after the unfavorable verdict was rendered, no cause for a new trial is shown where no improper conduct on the part of the jurors or others is shown.

3. “On the trial of a misdemeanor, the case may be made out *796by proof that the accused committed the act which constitutes the offense charged at any time within two years previous to the return of the indictment. *Reynolds v. State,*114 Ga. 265 (40 SE 234).” *Bell v. State,*85 Ga. App. 242, 244 (68 SE2d 925). See also *Daniel v. State,*59 Ga. App. 884 (2 SE2d 519). Accordingly, the charge complained of in special ground 2 was not error.

Decided November 16, 1961.

*Murphy & Murphy, Thomas B. Murphy,*for plaintiff in error.

*Wayne W. Gammon, Solicitor,*contra.

4. The evidence authorized a finding that the defendant exposed his private parts on three separate occasions at public places (public streets in the City of Cedartown) where one witness saw such indecent exposure and where other persons could have seen the same, and therefore authorized the verdict. See *Martin v. State,*38 Ga. App. 392 (144 SE 36). The cases of *Wynne v. State,*65 Ga. App. 213 (15 SE2d 623), and *Piercy v. State,*92 Ga. App. 599 (89 SE2d 554), involved situations wherein the evidence disclosed that there was only one person who could have seen the alleged indecent acts. Accordingly the usual general grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
§ 520.2330 Sulfisoxazole tablets. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each tablet contains 260 milligrams (4 grains) of sulfisoxazole.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Administer one tablet orally per 4 pounds of body weight.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* Use in dogs and cats as an aid in treatment of bacterial pneumonia and bacterial enteritis when caused by organisms sensitive to sulfisoxazole.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Repeat dosage at 24-hour intervals until 2 to 3 days after disappearance of clinical symptoms. (Administration of one-half daily dosage at 12-hour intervals or one-third daily dosage at 8-hour intervals will provide a more constant blood level.) Provide adequate supply of drinking water. If symptoms persist after using this preparation for 2 or 3 days, consult a veterinarian. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[43 FR 60895, Dec. 29, 1978, as amended at 79 FR 28831, May 20, 2014; 87 FR 76421, Dec. 14, 2022]
Item #30

– Adopt the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) December 7, 2012

Motion by Mayor Yates:

1. To remove CTS

- 04 from the 2012 AQMP, which contains the LVP exemption issue; and

2. To prepare a letter from Dr. Burke to CARB Chairman Nichols requesting a study which

evaluates whether some of the exempt LVP substances contribute to ozone and should be

further controlled fro ozone attainment purposes. the letter should offer our technic al

assistance and possible funding assistance for each study, and emphasize the need to partner with affected businesses in conducting such study; and

3. Have staff make a presentation to the Stationary Source Committee in January or February 2013 regarding our staff’s preliminary study of LVP materials that led to the draft AQMP measure, and to also present the draft letter from Chairman Burke to Mary Nichols to the

Committee.

Motion by Councilmember Mitchell:

1. Relative only to Control measure IND

- 01, the Port Backstop Measure, continue the hearing to our Board’s February 1 st public meeting; and

2. Direct that the District staff prepare a detailed presentation on the need and legal basis for the Port Backstop Measure and continue to seek input on the Port Ba ckstop measure from interested parties during the interim period. A special effort should be made between AQMD and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long beach to resolve the existing differences; and

3. Schedule a meeting of the Board’s Marine Port Committee for the latter part of January to review progress on resolving issues raised during the 2012 AQMP process.

Amending main motion to Approve the Plan by Supervisor Gonzales:

Move that during rulemaking process and implementation of AQMP that staff work with affected businesses and industries on strategies to minimize the impact to those regulated parties by means including, but not limited to, incentives, loan programs and education and outreach, and further, seek to leverage and maximize available funds to support the business community in implementing and complying with regulations.