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

                CERTIFICATION OF REGISTRANT'S CHIEF EXECUTIVE
                     OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350


I, Peter J. Murphy, Chief Executive Officer of Parlex Corporation (the
"Company"), do 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
my knowledge:

      (a)   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period
            ending March 28, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
            Commission (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
            Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: May 12, 2004

/s/ Peter J. Murphy
------------------------
Peter J. Murphy
Chief Executive Officer


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended, or
otherwise subject to liability under that section. This certification shall
not be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities
Act or Exchange, except to the extent that the Company specifically
incorporates it by reference.


<PAGE>
No. 27,470.

#### John Klem, H. M. Drake, W. R. Lawson, Clarence Pearson et al., *Appellees,*v. A. S. Bernheisel, Charles E. Cook, John Morris, John Sleisher and J. H. Anderson, Supervisors of Drainage District No. 1 in Lyon County, *Appellants;*Emporia Township, Lyon County, *Appellee.*

Appeal from Lyon district court; Isaac T. Richardson, judge.

Opinion filed March 12, 1927.

Reversed.

*Lon C. McCarty,*of Emporia, *Justin D. Bowersock, Robert B. Fizzell*and *John F. Rhodes,*all of Kansas City, Mo., for the appellants.

*O. L. Isaacs,*of Emporia, for plaintiffs, appellees; *W. L. Huggins*and *O. T. Atherton,*both of Emporia, for intervener, appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Harvey, J.:

In this action individual owners of land within drainage district No. 1 of Lyon county, and taxpayers therein, seek to enjoin the supervisors of such drainage district from proceeding to carry on the functions of such corporation. No question is presented herein which has not been determined by the decisions in the cases of *State, ex rel., v. Drainage District,*ante, p. 191, *Lyon County Comm’rs v. Bernheisel,*ante, p. 204, this day decided.

Upon the authority of those cases this case will be reversed with directions to enter judgment for defendants.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T ALVA RO GA RC I A- J I M ENEZ , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 11- 73335 A ge nc yN o. A 089- 854- 491 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A ugus t1, 2013 ** B efo re: G R A B E R , W A R D L A W , an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A l varo G ar ci a- Ji m enez , a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f M exi co, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd r e l i e f

unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . O ur 

# FI LED AU G 20 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 73335 2 j ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f a c tua l f i ndi ngs f or s ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e , Zehat ye v. G on zales , 45 3 F . 3d 11 82 , 11 84 -85 (9th C i r. 20 06 ), a n dwe d i s m i s s i n p a rta n dd e n yi n p artth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the B I A ’ s f i ndi ng tha tP e t i t i one r ’ s a s y l um ap p lic a tio n w a s u n tim e lyf ile d , b e c au s e h e f

a ile dto e x h au s t h is a r g u m e n ts r e g a r d in g th e e x c e p tio n s to th e tim e b ar . Se e B a rr o n v . A s h c r o ft , 358 F . 3d 674, 6 7 7 - 7 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . S ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e s up p o rts th e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l, be c aus e a nyha rm tha toc c urr e d ha d no ne xus t o apr ot e c t e d gr ound. See B arri os v. H older , 5 8 1 F .3 d8 4 9 , 8 5 4 - 5 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ; R am os-L op ezv. H older , 563 F . 3d 855, 858- 62 ( 9th C i r . 2009) . W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rP e t i t i one r ’ s a r gum e nt re gardi ng succ es sf

ul fam i l i es as a s oci algrou p b ec ause he fa i l ed t o exh austthat a r g u m e n t. Se e B arr on , 3 5 8 F .3 da t 6 7 7 - 7 8 . S ub st ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the deni alof C A T re l i ef , because P et i t i on er f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha ti ti s m or e l i ke l ythan nottha the w oul d be t ortur e d i f he r e tu rn s to M e x ic o . See Si laya v. Mukasey , 52 4 F . 3d 10 66 , 10 73 (9th C i r. 20 08 ). P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D IS M IS S E D i n p art; D E N IE D i n p art .
In the United States Court of Appeals

For the Fifth Circuit

_______________

m 02-30197

_______________

ALICIA TANGUIS, ETC., ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

ALICIA TANGUIS,

ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA;

DONALD F. MANKIN, JR.,

ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA;

GEORGE A. BARISICH,

ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA;

MEDRIC MEYER,

ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA;

PRESTON SALTALAMACCHIA,

ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS

WESTCHESTER M/V, ET AL.,

Defendants,

WESTCHESTER M/V

AND

ERMIS MARITIME CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellees.
2

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

IN THE MATTER OF:

MARINE OIL TRADER 3 LIMITED,

AS OWNER OF M/V WESTCHESTER PETITIONING FOR

EXONERATION FROM OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY;

TRITON MARINE, S.A.,

AS MANAGER OF M/V WESTCHESTER PETITIONING FOR

EXONERATION FROM OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY;

ERMIS MARITIME CORPORATION,

AS MANAGER OF M/V WESTCHESTER PETITIONING FOR

EXONERATION FROM OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

MARINE OIL TRADER 3 LIMITED,

AS OWNER OF M/V WESTCHESTER;

TRITON MARINE, S.A.,

AS MANAGER OF M/V WESTCHESTER;

ERMIS MARITIME CORPORATION,

AS MANAGER OF M/V WESTCHESTER,

Petitioners-Appellees,

VERSUS

ISTVAN ABONYI, ET AL.,

Claimants.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

m 01-CV-3559-N

_________________________

December 10, 2002
3

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and 

EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Thisis a putative state class action that was

subsumed, on removal to federal court, by a

limitation ofliability action. The appellants assert error in the district court’s dismissal of

potential claims. We have read the briefs and

the applicable law, have heard the arguments

of counsel, and have consulted pertinent portions of the record.

Because the limitation ofliabilityaction terminates appellants’status as asserted classrepresentatives, appellants have no standing to

pursue this appeal on behalf of potential claimants. Because of the lack of standing, we have

no jurisdiction over the appeal.

The appeal, accordingly, is DISMISSED.

*

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.
#### Austin J. Waldron, Incorporated, complainant, *v.*Juliette V. Cutley, defendant.

[Decided January 22d, 1929.]

*Messrs. Pilgrim & Riger,*for the complainant.

*Mr. Elmer W.*Romine, for the defendant.

Church, V. C.

This is a bill for the specific performance of a contract for the sale by the complainant to the defendant of premises on Highland road, South Orange.

Defendant resists, alleging the following misrepresentations: There were no triple floors, there was no metal lath and the building was not solid brick construction. It is admitted that the building does not comply with these alleged representations. It is also admitted that the final contract of sale does not contain any of these alleged representations.

The facts appear to be that defendant, Mrs. Cutley, was looking for a home. She went to Pflueger Connelly Company and the representative of this real estate concern showed her various houses. Mrs. Cutley then saw the house in dispute and the agents said, “we can get you that house cheaper.” There were negotiations with the owner, Mr. *587Waldron, who refused several offers and finally signed the agreement of sale which, as I have said, contains none of the alleged representations.

There are, therefore, two aspects of this case to be considered.

First, were they made at all by anybody? The testimony, as I read it, leads me to believe they were not. Mrs. Cutley, a very temperamental and excitable witness, looked over the property carefully and says, “I was under that impression, that all those houses in that street were solid brick,” and again, “I thought I was getting a solid brick house.” There is no direct proof that Connelly and Pflueger misrepresented the house in any way.

Assuming that they did, can this be charged to Mr. Waldron, who signed the agreement of sale without any of these alleged representations? Connelly and Pflueger were not his agents — they were engaged by Mrs. Cutley.

Even if they were, they had no right to bind him by misrepresenting facts, when he had no knowledge of the misrepresentations. It is a well known principle of law that a real estate agent is not a general agent, and therefore the real estate agent’s acts are not binding unless within the scope of his authority. There is no need of citations for this proposition. No instructions of any kind have been proven as between Connelly and Pflueger and Waldron.

I will advise a decree directing specific performance.
#### § 510.601 Records and reports.

For provisions relating to required records and reports, see part 501, subpart C, of this chapter. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements imposed by part 501 of this chapter with respect to the prohibitions contained in this part are considered requirements arising pursuant to this part.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Concerns Over Potential use of New Polish Legislation to Target Opposition

# 									Concerns Over Potential use of New Polish Legislation to Target Opposition							

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

May 29, 2023

The U.S. Government is concerned by the Polish government’s passage of new legislation that could be misused to interfere with Poland’s free and fair elections. We share the concerns expressed by many observers that this law to create a commission to investigate Russian influence could be used to block the candidacy of opposition politicians without due process. We call on the government of Poland to ensure this law does not preempt voters’ ability to vote for candidate of their choice and that it not be invoked or abused in ways that could affect the perceived legitimacy of elections.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonPolandRussia

Back to Top
Document

Exhibit 10(ar)


															
		Non-Employee Director Compensation
		Effective January 2021
					
		Board Member Fees:			
					
		Annual Retainer:		$	65,000 		
		Annual Equity Award:		$	130,000 		(1)(2)
					
				$	195,000 		
					
					
		Lead Director Fee:		$	20,000 		
					
		Committee Chair Fees:			
					
		Audit		$	15,000 		
		Compensation		$	15,000 		
		Nominating & Governance		$	10,000 		
		Regulatory & Compliance		$	15,000 		
		 			
		Meeting Fees:		$	1,500 		(3)
					
					
					
	(1)	Target Value of restricted stock units			
	(2)	New Directors receive an award of a pro-rated number of shares of the most recent annual grant based on the months remaining until the next annual grant
	(3)	For meetings attended in excess of 24 in a year
# L_2020051EN.01001301.xml

| 25.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 51/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 51/13

---

Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/217 of 4 October 2019 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures and correcting that Regulation

(Official Journal of the European Union of L 44 of 18 February 2020)

On page 4, Article 3 is replaced as follows:

‘Article 3

Entry into force and application

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 1 October 2021.

However, Article 2 shall apply from 1 December 2019.

Substances and mixtures may, before 1 October 2021, be classified, labelled and packaged in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 as amended by this Regulation.’

---
§ 601.4 Distinctive counterfeit deterrents. The distinctive counterfeit deterrents that may be used in the denominations of United States Federal Reserve notes as prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury are: ( a ) Security threads containing graphics consisting of the designation “USA” and the denomination of the currency note, expressed in alphabetic or numeric characters.
( b ) Optically variable inks with material characteristics.
( c ) Non-visual characteristic inks with material characteristics.
( d ) Optically variable thread (three-dimensional (3-D) security ribbon and micro-optic stripe) visible in front or back of the currency note.
( e ) Non-visual characteristic features with material characteristics.
§ 598.507 Provision of certain legal services. ( a ) The provision of the following legal services to or on behalf of a specially designated narcotics trafficker is authorized, provided that any receipt of payment of professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses must be authorized pursuant to §§ 598.508 and 598.509, which authorize certain types of payments for legal services; via specific license; or otherwise pursuant to this part: ( 1 ) Provision of legal advice and counseling on the requirements of and compliance with the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States, provided that such advice and counseling are not provided to facilitate transactions in violation of this part;
( 2 ) Representation of persons when named as defendants in or otherwise made parties to legal, arbitration, or administrative proceedings before any U.S. federal, state, or local court or agency;
( 3 ) Initiation and conduct of legal, arbitration, or administrative proceedings before any U.S. federal, state, or local court or agency;
( 4 ) Representation of persons before any U.S. federal, state, or local court or agency with respect to the imposition, administration, or enforcement of U.S. sanctions against such persons; and
( 5 ) Provision of legal services in any other context in which prevailing U.S. law requires access to legal counsel at public expense.
( b ) The provision of any other legal services to specially designated narcotics traffickers, not otherwise authorized in this part, requires the issuance of a specific license.
( c ) U.S. persons do not need to obtain specific authorization to provide related services, such as making filings and providing other administrative services, that are ordinarily incident to the provision of services authorized by this paragraph. Additionally, U.S. persons who provide services authorized by this paragraph do not need to obtain specific authorization to contract for related services that are ordinarily incident to the provision of those legal services, such as those provided by private investigators or expert witnesses, or to pay for such services. *See* § 598.405.
( d ) Entry into a settlement agreement or the enforcement of any lien, judgment, arbitral award, decree, or other order through execution, garnishment, or other judicial process purporting to transfer or otherwise alter or affect property or interests in property blocked pursuant to § 598.202(a), is prohibited unless licensed pursuant to this part.
Note 1 to § 598.507 :
Pursuant to part 501, subpart E, of this chapter, U.S. persons seeking administrative reconsideration or judicial review of their designation or the blocking of their property and interests in property may apply for a specific license from OFAC to authorize the release of certain blocked funds necessary for the payment of professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses where alternative funding sources are not available.
[86 FR 26669, May 17, 2021]
# Afghanistan

529 items

        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 19, 2024	  Vedant PatelMarch 19, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 18, 2024	  Vedant PatelMarch 18, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		CARE Coordinator Tekach’s Travel to Texas	  March 9, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 6, 2024	  Matthew MillerMarch 6, 2024Washington, D.C. 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 4, 2024	  Matthew MillerMarch 4, 2024Washington, D.C. 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 29, 2024	  Matthew MillerFebruary 29, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 28, 2024	  Matthew MillerFebruary 28, 2024Washington, D.C. 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 27, 2024	  Matthew MillerFebruary 27, 2024 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J.  Blinken At the Alliance for Afghan Women’s Economic Resilience Summit	  Antony J. BlinkenFebruary 27, 2024Loy Henderson AuditoriumWashington, D.C.  
        -    Notice to the Press  		Secretary Blinken to Deliver Remarks at the Alliance for Afghan Women’s Economic Resilience (AWER) Summit	  February 26, 2024 

previous page1234…53next page

Back to Top
§ 562.101 Relation of this part to other laws and regulations. This part is separate from, and independent of, the other parts of this chapter, with the exception of part 501 of this chapter, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements and license application and other procedures of which apply to this part. Actions taken pursuant to part 501 of this chapter with respect to the prohibitions contained in this part are considered actions taken pursuant to this part. Differing foreign policy and national security circumstances may result in differing interpretations of similar language among the parts of this chapter. No license or authorization contained in or issued pursuant to those other parts authorizes any transaction prohibited by this part. No license or authorization contained in or issued pursuant to any other provision of law or regulation authorizes any transaction prohibited by this part. No license or authorization contained in or issued pursuant to this part relieves the involved parties from complying with any other applicable laws or regulations. Note to § 562.101 :
This part has been published in abbreviated form for the purpose of providing immediate guidance to the public. OFAC intends to supplement this part with a more comprehensive set of regulations, which may include additional interpretive and definitional guidance and additional general licenses and statements of licensing policy.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2851 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2851

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for approval of 
  enrollment in courses offered at certain branches or extensions of 
  proprietary profit institutions of higher learning in operation for 
                          more than two years.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1996

 Mr. Stump (for himself and Mr. Buyer) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for approval of 
  enrollment in courses offered at certain branches or extensions of 
  proprietary profit institutions of higher learning in operation for 
                          more than two years.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 3689 of 
title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking out subsection (c); and
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) by striking out ``or'' at the end of paragraph 
                (5);
                    (B) by striking out the period at the end of 
                paragraph (6) and inserting in lieu thereof ``; or''; 
                and
                    (C) by adding after paragraph (6) the following:
            ``(7) any course offered by a proprietary profit 
        institution of higher learning at a branch or extension of such 
        institution if--
                    ``(A) the course has been offered at the principal 
                location of such institution for more than two years 
                and is approved under this chapter; and
                    ``(B) the course has been offered by another branch 
                or extension of such institution approved under this 
                chapter which has been in operation for more than two 
                years.''.
                                 <all>
```