alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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 Quarterly Report of Morlex, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald Barrick,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





/s/Donald
                Barrick
              Donald
                Barrick
              Principal
                Executive Officer
              Principal
                Financial Officer
              August
                4, 2006
#### Brenda BISHOP, a/k/a Brenda Boone, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CORBITT MARINE WAYS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 86-2336

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 10, 1986.

Bill J. Sanders, Beaumont, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.

Douglas R. Wight, L. Glen Kratochvil, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellee.

Before GEE, RUBIN, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This dispute over repairs to a fishing boat — a garden-variety commercial one— produced a RICO1 complaint asserting claims under Subsections 1962(c) and 1962(d)2, which were dismissed by the trial court, 632 F.Supp. 10. It did so because the plaintiff alleged that the RICO “person” and the RICO “enterprise” were one and the same: the sole defendant.3 We affirm.

As the trial court noted, the overwhelming weight of opinion in the circuits supports this action:

> It is the learned opinion and majority opinion of most courts facing the question that there must be a distinction between the RICO “person” and the RICO “enterprise.” *See, United States v. Computer Sciences Corp.,*689 F.2d 1181 [(4th Cir.1982)], *cert. denied,*459 U.S. 1105 [103 S.Ct. 729, 74 L.Ed.2d 953] *123(1983). *Haroco, Inc. v. American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago,*747 F.2d 384, 400 (7th Cir.1984), *aff'd,*— U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 3291 [87 L.Ed.2d 437] (1985); *Rae v. Union Bank,*725 F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir.1984); *Bennett v. Berg,*685 F.2d 1053, 1061 (8th Cir.1982), *aff'd in part and rev’d in part,*710 F.2d 1361 (8th Cir.1983), *cert. denied,*464 U.S. 1008 [104 S.Ct. 527, 78 L.Ed.2d 710] (1983); *Hirsch v. Enright Ref. Co.,*751 F.2d 628, 633 (3d Cir.1984); *Bennett v. United States Trust Co. of New York,*770 F.2d 308, 315 (2d Cir.1985), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -,. 106 S.Ct. 800 [88 L.Ed.2d 776] (1986).

> Only one Circuit had held no distinction need be shown. *United States v. Hartley,*678 F.2d 961 (11th Cir.1982), *cert. denied,*459 U.S. 1170 [103 S.Ct. 815, 74 L.Ed.2d 1014] (1983).

With all deference to our Brethren of the Eleventh Circuit, we align ourselves with the weight of authority: where subsection (c) violations are concerned, the “person” and the “enterprise” must be distinct. Because we find ourselves in agreement with the reasoning of the Seventh Circuit on this point, as expressed in *Haroco,*we adopt it and need not repeat it here. See 747 F.2d, at 399-402.

AFFIRMED.

1

. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961*et seq.*

2

. (c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsections (a), (b), or (c) of this section.

3

. Plaintiff had earlier non-suited the other original defendant.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.91

IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT NUMBER: 3051683

BENEFICIARY                             APPLICANT

COMERICA BANK CALIFORNIA                MTI TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
INTERNATIONAL DIVISION                  4905 E.LA PALMA AVE.
9920 SOUTH LA CIENEGA BLVD 11TH FLR     ANAHEIM, CA 92807
INGLEWOOD, CA 90301-4423

THE NOTICE OF NON-RENEWAL DATED APRIL 19, 2004 IS HEREBY RESCINDED.

THE AUTOMATIC EXTENSION TERMS ARE HEREBY REINSTATED.

ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED.

IF YOU HAVE ANY INQUIRIES REGARDING THIS NOTICE, PLEASE CALL 213-345-6620 AND
QUOTE OUR REFERENCE NUMBER LISTED ABOVE.

SINCERELY,

BANK OF AMERICA N.A.

   /s/  Marisa G. Diwa                                 /s/ Carol Gandia
---------------------------                      ----------------------------
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE                             AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
      MARISA G. DIWA                                     CAROL GANDIA

CC: BRIAN CALL
    NV1-119-02-01

                               EXTENDED TO 6/30/05

                                     ORIGINAL
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:19977 Filed:01/31/22 Entered:02/01/22 16:57:30 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:19977 Filed:01/31/22 Entered:02/01/22 16:57:30 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>


                                  ALDILA, INC.

             STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

                   (in thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       YEAR ENDED
                                                                      DECEMBER 31,
                                                          ----------------------------------
                                                            1997         1996         1995
                                                          --------     --------     --------
<S>                                                        <C>          <C>          <C>
Net income............................................     $1,539       $5,682       $6,270
                                                           ------       ------       ------
                                                           ------       ------       ------

Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding...     15,625       16,411       16,714
Net effect of common stock options....................        113           23           51
                                                           ------       ------       ------

Weighted average shares outstanding...................     15,738       16,434       16,765
                                                           ------       ------       ------
                                                           ------       ------       ------

Earnings per common share.............................     $ 0.10       $ 0.35       $ 0.38
                                                           ------       ------       ------
                                                           ------       ------       ------

Earnings per common share, assuming dilution..........     $ 0.10       $ 0.35       $ 0.37
                                                           ------       ------       ------
                                                           ------       ------       ------
</TABLE>




                                  Exhibit 11.1


                                      -38-
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 200 (Monday, October 19, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53522-53523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25041]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 70-36-MLA; ASLBP No. 10-894-01-MLA-BD01]


Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC; Establishment of Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board

    Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, 
published in the Federal Register, 37 FR 28,710 (1972), and the 
Commission's regulations, see 10 CFR 2.104, 2.105, 2.300, 2.313, 2.318, 
and 2.321, notice is hereby given that an Atomic Safety and Licensing 
Board (Board) is being established to preside over the following 
proceeding:

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Hematite Decommissioning Project)

    This proceeding concerns a request for hearing from petitioner 
Citizens for a Clean Idaho, Inc. submitted in response to a July 6, 
2009 Notice of License Amendment Request of Westinghouse Electric 
Company, LLC for Hematite Decommissioning Project, Festus, Missouri and 
Opportunity To Request a Hearing (74 FR 31,994; see also 74 FR 47, 287 
(Sept. 15, 2009)). The license amendment request seeks authorization 
allowing Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC to transfer decommissioning 
waste from its former fuel cycle facility in Festus, Missouri to U.S. 
Ecology Idaho, Inc., a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle 
C disposal facility located near Grand View, Idaho.
    The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges:

Paul S. Ryerson, Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Michael F. Kennedy, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Mark O. Barnett, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed 
in

[[Page 53523]]

accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC promulgated in 
August 2007 (72 FR 49,139).

    Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of October 2009.
E. Roy Hawkens,
Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. E9-25041 Filed 10-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7739

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALVIN WAYNE HARDESTY, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CR-98-299; CA-03-2246-AW) Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 22, 2004 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alvin Wayne Hardesty, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Odessa Palmer Jackson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Alvin Wayne Hardesty, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hardesty has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hardesty’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED
§ 701.19 Benefits for employees of Federal credit unions. ( a ) *General authority.* A federal credit union may provide employee benefits, including retirement benefits, to its employees and officers who are compensated in conformance with the Act and the bylaws, individually or collectively with other credit unions. The kind and amount of these benefits must be reasonable given the federal credit union's size, financial condition, and the duties of the employees.
( b ) *Plan trustees and custodians.* Where a federal credit union is the benefit plan trustee or custodian, the plan must be authorized and maintained in accordance with the provisions of part 724 of this chapter. Where the benefit plan trustee or custodian is a party other than a federal credit union, the benefit plan must be maintained in accordance with applicable laws governing employee benefit plans, including any applicable rules and regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of the Treasury, or any other federal or state authority exercising jurisdiction over the plan.
( c ) *Investment authority.* A federal credit union investing to fund an employee benefit plan obligation is not subject to the investment limitations of the Act and part 703 or, as applicable, part 704, of this chapter and may purchase an investment that would otherwise be impermissible if the investment is directly related to the federal credit union's obligation or potential obligation under the employee benefit plan and the federal credit union holds the investment only for as long as it has an actual or potential obligation under the employee benefit plan.
( d ) *Defined benefit plans.* Under paragraph (c) of this section, a federal credit union may invest to fund a defined benefit plan if the investment meets the conditions provided in that paragraph. If a federal credit union invests to fund a defined benefit plan that is not subject to the fiduciary responsibility provisions of part 4 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, it should diversify its investment portfolio to minimize the risk of large losses unless it is clearly prudent not to do so under the circumstances.
( e ) *Liability insurance.* No federal credit union may occupy the position of a fiduciary, as defined in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the rules and regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor, unless it has obtained appropriate liability insurance as described and permitted by Section 410(b) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
( f ) *Definitions.* For this section, defined benefit plan has the same meaning as in 29 U.S.C. 1002(35) and employee benefit plan has the same meaning as in 29 U.S.C. 1002(3).
[68 FR 23027, Apr. 30, 2003]
#### SHIELD PETROLEUM CO. et al. v. ATLAS SUPPLY CO.

No. 29798.

June 23, 1942.

*127 P. 2d 208.*

T. G. Chambers, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.

Yancey & Douglass, of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

DAVISON, J.

This action originated in the district court of Oklahoma county. The appeal was lodged in this court on April 12, 1940. On April 10, 1940, the parties filed a stipulation and joint motion to the effect that the cause was tried in the lower court jointly with the cause of P. P. Gibbons et al. v. Atlas Supply Co.; since decided by this court, 190 Okla. 505, 124 P. 2d 969.

The parties agreed that the questions of law were similar in the two cases, and that briefs should not be filed in this case until the decision in the companion case should be made by this court and become final. It was further stipulated that the parties should have 30 days after the final determination of the companion case in which to present their briefs.

The 30 days agreed upon has expired and no briefs have been filed.

We have examined the record and find that the controlling issues of law are the same. The decision of the trial court in this case is therefore affirmed upon authority of Gibbons v. Atlas Supply Co., supra, and the syllabus in that case is adopted as the syllabus in this case.

WELCH, C. J., CORN, V. C. J., and RILEY, BAYLESS, and GIBSON, JJ., concur. OSBORN, J., dissents. HURST and ARNOLD, JJ., absent.
# C_2011141EN.01001201.xml

| 12.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/12

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

of 31 January 2011

in Case E-13/10

Aleris Ungplan AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Refusal of the EFTA Surveillance Authority to commence proceedings for alleged failure of an EEA State to fulfil its obligations in the field of procurement — Actionable measures — Admissibility)

2011/C 141/12

In Case E-13/10: Aleris Ungplan AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION under the second paragraph of Article 36 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice for annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 248/10/COL of 21 June 2010 on procurement for youth care services in Norway, the Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson (Judge-Rapporteur), and Per Christiansen, Judges, gave order of 31 January 2011, the operative part of which is as follows:

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

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicant bears the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant bears the costs of the proceedings.

---
### APPENDIX F

PRODUCT FORMULATIONS CO NTAINING MULTIPLE ACTIVE

INGREDIENTS FOR POTASSIUM NITRATE

The Agency does not routinely include, in its risk assessments, an evaluation of mixtures

of active ingredients, either those mixtur es of multiple active ingredients in product

formulations or those in the applicator’s ta nk. In the case of the product formulations of

active ingredients (that is, a registered product containing mo re than one active

ingredient), each active ingredient is subj ect to an individual risk assessment for

regulatory decision regarding the active ingredient on a particular use site. If effects data

are available for a formulated product contai ning more than one active ingredient, they

may be used qualitatively or quantitatively 1 2



### .

There are no product LD50 values, with a ssociated 95% Confid ence Intervals (CIs)

available for potassium nitrate.

As discussed in USEPA (2000) a quantitati ve component-based evaluation of mixture

toxicity requires data of appr opriate quality for each compon ent of a mixture. In this

mixture evaluation an LD50 with associated 95% CI is needed for the formulated

product. The same quality of data is also re quired for each component of the mixture.

Given that the formulated products for potatssium nitrate do not have LD50 data

available it is not possible to undertake a qua ntitative or qualitative analysis for potential

interactive effects. However, because the active ingredients are not expected to have

similar mechanisms of action, metabolites, or toxicokinetic behavior , it is reasonable to

conclude that an assumption of dose-addition would be inappropriate. Consequently, an

assessment based on the toxicity of potassium n itrate is the only reasonable approach that

employs the available data to address the pot ential acute risks of th e formulated products.

1 Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Proces s in the Office of Pesticid e Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency (January 2004) (Overview Document).

2 Memorandum to Office of Preventio n, Pesticides and Toxic Substance, US EPA conveying an evaluation

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Mari ne Fisheries Service of an approach to assessing

the ecological risks of pesticide products (January 2004).Pesticide Products Formulated with Potassium Nitrate and Other Pesticide Active IngredientsPOTASSIUM NITRATE PRODUCTS3PRODUCTADJUSTED FOR ACTIVEINGREDIENTPRODUCT/TRADENAMEEPA Reg.No.%PotassiumNitrateLD 504(mg/kg)CI (mg/kg)LD50 (mg/kg)CI (mg/kg)Smoke’em000004-046346.2No DataNo DataNo DataNo DataDexol Gopher Gasser000192-0004945>5000N/ALimit DoseNo DataNo DataRevenge RodentSmoke Bomb009086-0000438.8No DataNo DataNo DataNo Data3From registrant submitted data to support registration. Compiled by Office of Pesticide Programs Registration and Health Effects Divisions.N/A= Not Applicable
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsComputational engine structural analysisA significant research activity at the NASA Lewis Research Center is the computational simulation of complex multidisciplinary engine structural problems. This simulation is performed using computational engine structural analysis (CESA) which consists of integrated multidisciplinary computer codes in conjunction with computer post-processing for problem-specific application. A variety of the computational simulations of specific cases are described in some detail in this paper. These case studies include: (1) aeroelastic behavior of bladed rotors, (2) high velocity impact of fan blades, (3) blade-loss transient response, (4) rotor/stator/squeeze-film/bearing interaction, (5) blade-fragment/rotor-burst containment, and (6) structural behavior of advanced swept turboprops. These representative case studies are selected to demonstrate the breath of the problems analyzed and the role of the computer including post-processing and graphical display of voluminous output data.Document ID19860010192Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsChamis, C. C.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Johns, R. H.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1986Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:87231NASA-TM-87231E-2898Meeting InformationMeeting: International Gas Turbine Conference and ExhibitLocation: DusseldorfCountry: GermanyStart Date: June 8, 1986End Date: June 12, 1986Sponsors:American Society of Mechanical EngineersAccession Number86N19663Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-63-11Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19860010192.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