alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



Chief Executive Officer 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 Max & Erma's, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the quarterly period ending October 27, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Todd B.
Barnum, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant 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
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Todd B. Barnum
---------------------------------------
Todd B. Barnum, Chief Executive Officer



January 16, 2003
T. Hunt Employment Letter Summary






Summary of Modifications
to Truman Hunt’s Employment Letter 



On May 12, 2008, our Compensation
Committee approved the following changes to the compensation of Truman Hunt, the Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, as reflected in Mr. Hunt’s Employment Letter. Mr.
Hunt’s base salary was increased to $750,000 per year. The dividend equivalent being
paid to Mr. Hunt on a hypothetical 250,000 shares (approximately $105,000 in 2007) was
terminated in connection with the increase in salary. Mr. Hunt’s semi-annual option
grant was increased to 50,000 options for 2008, and to 92,500 for future years (exclusive
of any special or one-time equity awards). Mr. Hunt’s target bonus percentage was
previously increased to 100 percent in September 2005.
#### Ex parte State of Alabama ex rel. Attorney General. (Re Calvin WHITE v. STATE of Alabama).

No. 79-487.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 30, 1980.

SHORES, Justice.

WRIT DENIED — NO OPINION.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, JONES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 411

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 411 appear at 71 FR 9471, Feb. 24, 2006

#### § 411.386 CMS's advisory opinions as exclusive.

The procedures described in this subpart constitute the only method by which any individuals or entities can obtain a binding advisory opinion on the subject of a physician's referrals, as described in § 411.370. CMS has not and does not issue a binding advisory opinion on the subject matter in § 411.370, in either oral or written form, except through written opinions it issues in accordance with this subpart.

[69 FR 57230, Sept. 24, 2004]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Designating Hamas Cyber and UAV-Unit Operatives

# 									Designating Hamas Cyber and UAV-Unit Operatives							

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

April 12, 2024

Operatives of terrorist group Hamas have used information warfare and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) to facilitate terrorist violence across multiple fronts.  In coordination with our international partners, the United States is today taking action against Hamas by targeting four Gaza- and Lebanon-based leaders of the terrorist group’s cyber and UAV operations.

The United States will continue to target Hamas’s destabilizing attempts to launch terrorist attacks, as well as to disrupt Hamas terrorists wherever they operate, including across cyberspace.

*The Department of the Treasury actions were taken pursuant to**Executive Order 13224**, as amended.  For more information on today’s action, see Treasury’s**press release**.*

Tags

Bureau of Near Eastern AffairsCountering TerrorismCyber IssuesCyber SecurityDivision for Counter Threat Finance and SanctionsOffice of the SpokespersonSanctionsTerrorism

Back to Top
# C_2006060EN.01003102.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/31

---

Action brought on 30 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-48/06)

(2006/C 60/61)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by C. O'Reilly, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2002/90/EC of 28 November 2002 defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence, (1) and, in any event, by not informing the Commission of their adoption, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2002/90/EC of 28 November 2002 defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence, (1) and, in any event, by not informing the Commission of their adoption, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| 2. | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for implementing Directive 2002/90/EC expired on 4 December 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 328 of 5.12.2002, p. 17.

1

---
EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANDCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Joseph J. Lazzara, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that the Annual Report of Scientific Technologies Incorporated onForm 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairlypresents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Scientific Technologies Incorporated. 

 

By:/s/    Joseph J. Lazzara
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3095 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 3095

To prohibit discrimination in contracting on federally funded projects 
    on the basis of certain labor policies of potential contractors.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 1996

 Mr. Hutchinson (for himself, Mr. Paxon, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Largent, Mr. 
 Smith of Texas, Mr. Ballenger, Mrs. Meyers of Kansas, Mr. Sam Johnson 
   of Texas, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Graham, Mr. Souder, Mr. 
  Funderburk, Mr. Goss, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. 
Cremeans, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Taylor of North Carolina, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. 
Dornan, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Linder, Mr. Cooley of Oregon, 
Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Crane, and Mr. Ramstad) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Economic and 
                       Educational Opportunities

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit discrimination in contracting on federally funded projects 
    on the basis of certain labor policies of potential contractors.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Open Competition Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN LABOR RELATIONS 
              POLICIES OF OFFERORS ON FEDERALLY FUNDED CONTRACTS.

    Section 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158(e)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding any 
other provision of this Act, no person may be discriminated against 
when bidding on a prime contract, funded in whole or in part with funds 
provided by the Federal Government, where such discrimination is based 
in whole or in part on a requirement that such person enter into or 
adhere to a collective bargaining agreement or any similar agreement as 
a condition of performing work on the contract.''.

SEC. 3. CONSTRUCTION.

    Section 2 shall not be construed to apply to subcontractors or to 
prohibit a contractor from voluntarily entering into a lawful agreement 
with a labor organization or to discourage contractors who have entered 
into such an agreement from bidding on Federal contracts. Section 2 
shall apply to contracts made directly with any agency of the Federal 
Government as well as to contracts with any entity which is managing or 
operating a facility owned or controlled by the Federal Government on 
behalf of the Federal Government.
                                 <all>
```
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAttitude Control Subsystem for the Advanced Communications Technology SatelliteThis paper provides an overview of the on-orbit operation of the Attitude Control Subsystem (ACS) for the Advanced Communications Technology Satellite (ACTS). The three ACTS control axes are defined, including the means for sensing attitude and determining the pointing errors. The desired pointing requirements for various modes of control as well as the disturbance torques that oppose the control are identified. Finally, the hardware actuators and control loops utilized to reduce the attitude error are described.Document ID19970008389Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsHewston, Alan W.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Mitchell, Kent A.*(Lockheed Martin Astro Space Windsor, NJ United States)*Sawicki, Jerzy T.*(Cleveland State Univ. Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1996Subject CategoryAstrodynamicsReport/Patent NumberE-10505NAS 1.15:107352NASA-TM-107352Accession Number97N14688Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 233-5B-5FDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970008389.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
# C_2006086EN.01002703.xml

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/27

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2006 — Schneider Electric v Commission

(Case T-48/03) (1)

1

(Competition - Concentrations - Resumption of the control procedure following annulment by the Court of First Instance of a decision prohibiting a concentration - Initiation of the detailed examination phase - Abandonment of the concentration - Closure of the control procedure - Action for annulment - Acts adversely affecting the applicant - Interest in bringing an action - Inadmissible)

(2006/C 86/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Schneider Electric (Rueil-Malmaison) (represented by: initially A. Winckler, M. Pittie and É de La Serre, then M. Pittie and A. Winckler, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially p. Oliver and F. Lelièvre, then P. Oliver and O. Beynet, Agents)

Defendant:

Application for

annulment, first, of the Commission's decision of 4 December 2002 to open the detailed examination phase of the concentration between Schneider and Legrand (Case COMP/M.2283 — Schneider/Legrand II) and, second, of the Commission's decision of 13 December 2002 to close the procedure for the control of that transaction

Operative part of the Order

| 1. | The applicant is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The applicant is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 101, 26.4.2003.

1

---
# C_2006010EN.01002301.xml

| 14.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/23

---

Action brought on 14 October 2005 — Zuffa/OHIM

(Case T-379/05)

(2006/C 10/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Zuffa, LLC (Las Vegas, USA) [represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, M. Blair, Solicitor]

Applicant(s):

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | The decision of the First Board of Appeal dated 8 August 2005 in Case R 24/2005-1 shall be annulled; |
| --- | --- |

—

The decision of the First Board of Appeal dated 8 August 2005 in Case R 24/2005-1 shall be annulled;

| — | the Office shall bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Office shall bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ULTIMATE FIGHTING’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 25, 28 and 41 — application No 2 766 590

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application in respect of all goods and services applied for

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The term ULTIMATE FIGHTING, taken as a whole, is not a generic or usual name in relation to all the claimed goods and services. The Board of Appeal failed to adequately analyse the whole mark in relation to all the goods and services applied for.

Pleas in law:

---
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2969 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2969

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To eliminate the Board of Tea Experts by repealing the Tea Importation 
                              Act of 1897.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2969

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To eliminate the Board of Tea Experts by repealing the Tea Importation 
                              Act of 1897.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Tea Tasters Repeal Act of 
1996''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF TEA IMPORTATION ACT OF 1897.

    The Tea Importation Act (21 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) is repealed.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 21, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# C_2005270EN.01004502.xml

| 29.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/45

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3784 — Tridonicatco/Toyoda Gosei/LED JV)

(2005/C 270/16)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 19 October 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3784. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3784. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted 
from - Form
10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 
financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         720,838
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,494,536
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (98,515)
<INVENTORY>                                     96,248
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,537,754
<PP&E>                                         438,931
<DEPRECIATION>                               (195,538)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,830,102
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,139,496
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       335,577
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,269,287
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,830,102
<SALES>                                      6,022,121
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,022,121
<CGS>                                          712,922
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,592,543
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (16,285)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,986
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,707,955
<INCOME-TAX>                                   725,644
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            982,311
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   982,311
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6324

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DEMETRIUS LAMONT MCCULLERS, a/k/a Meek,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CR-96-51-BO)

Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: June 3, 1998

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Demetrius Lamont McCullers, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing Appellant's motion to compel the Government to make a Fed. R. Crim. P.

35 motion or motion under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1

(1996), for a downward departure based on substantial assistance.

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. United States v. McCullers, No. CR-96-51-BO

(E.D.N.C. Jan. 21, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
##### 



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 Sterling Gas Drilling Fund 1982 (the
Partnership) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Charles E. Drimal Jr., Chief Executive Officer of PrimeEnergy Management
Corporation, the Managing General Partner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant 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 respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Partnership. /s/ Charles E. Drimal Jr.Chief Executive OfficerMarch 29, 2004