alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Return
      to Main Document




**EXHIBIT
        32.1**
  **EXPRESS
        SYSTEMS, CORPORATIN.**
 **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 Express Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on
        Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Randle
        Barrington-Foote, President, CEO, and Director of the Company, certify,
        pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of operations of the
                Company.  /s/Randle
        Barrington-Foote
 ________________________
 Randle
        Barrington-Foote
 President,
        CEO, and Director
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7211** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. MARK LYNN, a/k/a Mark Aaron Lynn , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. ( 3:08

- cr - 00082

- REP

- 1 ; 3:11

- cv - 00585

- REP )

Submitted : February 25 , 2015 Decided: March 3, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Mark Lynn , Appellant Pro Se. Richard Daniel Cooke , Gurney Wingate Grant, II , Angela Mastandrea

- Miller, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney s , Richmond, Virginia, for Appelle e.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Mark Lynn seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). 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) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that th e motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lynn has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealabili ty and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### WILLINGHAM v. THE STATE.

(Decided January 30, 1917.)

Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. Thomas W. Wert.

No counsel marked for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Pelham, P. J.

A careful examination of the record discloses no error. Affirmed.
MATERIALS NOT INCLUDED IN

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (AD) DOCKET

FAA-2014-0646

Docket Number

2013-SW-053-AD

Directorate Identifier

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket - NPRM

Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. AS355-28.00.20, Revision 0, dated June 6, 2013

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region

Rules Docket

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663

Fort Worth, Texas 76137

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.
§ 4901.4 Information maintained in electronic reading room. PBGC will make available for public inspection in an electronic format without formal request— ( a ) *Information published in the* Federal Register. Federal Register documents published by PBGC, and Federal Register indexes;
( b ) *Information in PBGC publications.* Informational material, such as press releases, pamphlets, and other material ordinarily made available to the public without cost as part of a public information program;
( c ) *Rulemaking proceedings.* All papers and documents made a part of the official record in administrative proceedings conducted by PBGC in connection with the issuance, amendment, or revocation of rules and regulations or determinations having general applicability or legal effect with respect to members of the public or a class thereof;
( d ) *Other agency proceedings, policies, staff manuals and instructions, and records.* Except to the extent that deletion of identifying details is required to prevent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (in which case PBGC will explain in writing the justification for the deletion)— ( 1 ) *Adjudication proceedings.* Final opinions, orders, and (except to the extent that an exemption provided by FOIA must be asserted in the public interest to prevent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or violation of law or to ensure the proper discharge of the functions of PBGC) other papers and documents made a part of the official record in adjudication proceedings conducted by PBGC;
( 2 ) *Policy statements and interpretations.* Statements of policy and interpretations affecting a member of the public which have been adopted by PBGC and which have not been published in the Federal Register;
( 3 ) *Staff manuals and instructions.* Administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff issued by PBGC that affect any member of the public;
( 4 ) *Frequently requested records.* Records that have been released under section 552(a)(3) of FOIA and have been the subject of three or more disclosure requests; and
( 5 ) *Other records.* Records that have been released under section 552(a)(3) of FOIA and that PBGC determines, because of the nature of the records' subject matter, have become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent disclosure requests for substantially the same records; and
( e ) *Indexes to certain records.* Current indexes (updated at least quarterly) identifying materials described in section 552(a)(2) of FOIA and paragraph (d) of this section.
[61 FR 34123, July 1, 1996, as amended at 82 FR 26991, June 13, 2017; 87 FR 43994, July 25, 2022]
Submitted on record and briefs December 10, 1992,

appeal dismissed February 3, 1993

#### STATE OF OREGON, Acting by and through the DIRECTOR OF VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, *Respondent, v.*MARGUERITE E. WRIGHT TRUST; Marguerite E. Wright; Robert J. Wright; Valley Rolling Mills, Inc.; Lane County, Oregon; Gordon Wylie; Associates Financial Services Company of Oregon; United States of America, Internal Revenue Service, United States Treasury, Federal Bureau of Investigation; International Paper Company; Karl Harvey; and James Weaver, *Defendants, and*Thomas J. MARTIN, *Appellant.*

(16 84 07361; CA A72805)

845 P2d 1297

*9Thomas J. Martin, Noti, filed the briefs *pro se.*

Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Douglas F. Zier, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson,* Judges.

ROSSMAN, P. J.

*

 Leeson, J., *vice*Buttler, J., retired.

*10ROSSMAN, P. J.

In this foreclosure proceeding, the trial court issued a stipulated judgment of foreclosure against Robert and Marguerite Wright in October, 1988. In November, the court issued a writ of execution on the judgment. In February, 1989, the property was sold at a sheriffs sale. Appellant, a tenant on the property who had not been named as a party in the foreclosure proceeding, filed an “Amicus Curiae Request to File Motions” on February 23, 1989. The trial court entered an order in June, 1989, confirming the sheriffs sale. The Wrights appealed the order in July, 1989, and we affirmed. *State Director of Veterans’ Affairs v. Wright,*104 Or App 532, 802 P2d 102 (1990), *rev den*311 Or 187 (1991).

The trial judge allowed *nunc pro tunc*appellant’s request to file a motion to set aside the judgment of foreclosure, and, on November 19, 1991, it denied the motion. Appellant filed a notice of appeal. In February, 1992, we ordered appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of standing. On April 10,1992, we issued an order allowing the appeal to proceed:

> “Although appellant was improperly labelled as amicus curiae in the trial court, he was correctly allowed to participate and treated as if he had been allowed to intervene. Therefore, the court determines that he is a party to this appeal as an intervenor.”

Respondent asks v. to reconsider our ruling and to dismiss this appeal. We allow reconsideration, withdraw our former order and dismiss the appeal.

We were in error in stating that appellant was an intervenor. Appellant was not named as a party to the foreclosure action. He made no attempt to intervene or appear until after the judgment of foreclosure was final and the property had been sold; the time for the Wrights to appeal the judgment had expired. His filing of a motion to set aside the judgment of foreclosure against the Wrights did not give him status as an intervenor.

Appeal dismissed.
#### § 452.126 Delegates to conventions which do not elect officers.

Delegates to conventions need not be elected by secret ballot when officers of the organization are elected by a secret ballot vote of the entire membership. However, if the only method of making nominations is by delegates, then the delegates must be elected by secret ballot.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 5374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2039]


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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE U.S.

[Public Notice 2011-0008]


Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the U.S.

ACTION: Submission for OMB Review and Comments Request. Form Title: 
Notice of Claim and Proof of Loss, Export Credit Insurance policies.

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

SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of the United States (``Ex-Im Bank'') 
is the official export credit agency of the United States. Its mission 
is to create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing U.S. exports through 
direct loans, guarantees, insurance and working capital credits. By 
neutralizing the effect of export credit support offered by foreign 
governments and by absorbing credit risks that the private sector will 
not accept, Ex-Im Bank enables U.S. exporters to compete fairly in 
foreign markets on the basis of price and product. Under the Export 
Credit Insurance policies, coverage is provided for export sales to one 
or many different buyers.
    In the event that a buyer defaults on a transaction insured by Ex-
Im Bank the insured exporter or lender may seek payment by the 
submission of a claim. This collection of information is necessary, 
pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 635(a)(1), to determine if such claim complies 
with the terms and conditions of the relevant insurance policy.
    This form can be reviewed at http://www.exim.gov/pub/pending/EIB10_03.pdf.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before (insert 30 days after 
publication) to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically on http://www.regulations.gov or by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20038 attn: OMB 3048--
NEW.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Titles and Form Number: Notice of Claim and Proof of Loss, Export 
Credit Insurance policies (EIB 10-03).
    OMB Number: 3048-XXXX.
    Type of Review: New.
    Need and Use: This collection provides Ex-Im Bank staff with the 
information necessary to process the filing of a claim for a defaulted 
transaction under Ex-Im Bank's Export Credit Insurance program.
    Number of respondents: 300.

Sharon A. Whitt,
Agency Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-2039 Filed 1-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
#### § 779.316 Establishments outside “retail concept” not within statutory definition; lack first requirement.

The term “retail” is alien to some businesses or operations. For example, transactions of an insurance company are not ordinarily thought of as retail transactions. The same is true of an electric power company selling electrical energy to private consumers. As to establishments of such businesses, therefore, a concept of retail selling or servicing does not exist. That it was the intent of Congress to exclude such businesses from the term “retail or service establishment” is clearly demonstrated by the legislative history of the 1949 amendments and by the judicial construction given said term both before and after the 1949 amendments. It also should be noted from the judicial pronouncements that a “retail concept” cannot be artificially created in an industry in which there is no traditional concept of retail selling or servicing. (95 Cong. Rec. pp. 1115, 1116, 12502, 12506, 21510, 14877, and 14889; *Mitchell* v. *Kentucky Finance Co.,* 359 U.S. 290; *Phillips Co.* v. *Walling,* 324 U.S. 490; *Kirschbaum Co.* v. *Walling,* 316 U.S. 517; *Durkin* v. *Joyce Agency, Inc.,* 110 F. Supp. 918 (N.D. Ill.) affirmed sub nom Mitchell v. Joyce Agency, Inc., 348 U.S. 945; *Goldberg* v. *Roberts* 291 F. 2d 532 (CA-9); *Wirtz* v. *Idaho Sheet Metal Works,* 335 F. 2d 952 (CA-9), affirmed in 383 U.S. 190; Telephone Answering Service v. Goldberg, 290 F. 2d 529 (CA-1).) It is plain, therefore, that the term “retail or service establishment” as used in the Act does not encompass establishments in industries lacking a “retail concept”. Such establishments not having been traditionally regarded as retail or service establishments cannot under any circumstances qualify as a “retail or service establishment” within the statutory definition of the Act, since they fail to meet the first requirement of the statutory definition. Industry usage of the term “retail” is not in itself controlling in determining when business transactions are retail sales under the Act. Judicial authority is quite clear that there are certain goods and services which can never be sold at retail. (*Idaho Sheet Metal Works, Inc.* v. *Wirtz,* 383 U.S. 190, 202, rehearing denied 383 U.S. 963; *Wirtz* v. *Steepleton General Tire Company, Inc.,* 383 U.S. 190, 202, rehearing denied 383 U.S. 963.)
TITN-2015.1.31-EX10.34




EXHIBIT 10.34
Description of Executive Cash Bonus Plan
Titan Machinery Inc.’s Executive Cash Bonus Plan (the “Plan”) is designed to reward executive officers for achievement of certain financial performance goals, which are annually set by the Compensation Committee.  Each executive officer may earn a potential bonus up to a prescribed percentage of the officer’s base salary, which percentage may be set forth in applicable employment agreements for certain executive officers or annually established by the Compensation Committee for other officers.  Base salary will be the officer’s annual salary rate in effect for the applicable fiscal year.  Each year, the Compensation Committee reviews the Plan and establishes the performance categories, the threshold, target, and maximum goals for each performance category, and the percentage of the eligible bonus allocated to each performance category.  Annual bonuses earned under the Plan are paid in cash.
§ 1902.10 Submission. ( a ) An authorized representative of the State agency or agencies responsible for administering the plan shall submit one copy of the plan to the appropriate Assistant Regional Director of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. The State plan shall include supporting papers conforming to the requirements specified in the subpart B of this part, and the State occupational safety and health standards to be included in the plan, including a copy of any specific or enabling State laws and regulations relating to such standards. If any of the representations concerning the requirements of subpart B of this part are dependent upon any judicial or administrative interpretations of the State standards or enforcement provisions, the State shall furnish citations to any pertinent judicial decisions and the text of any pertinent administrative decisions.
( b ) Upon receipt of the State plan the Assistant Regional Director shall make a preliminary examination of the plan. If his examination reveals any defect in the plan, the Assistant Regional Director shall offer assistance to the State agency and shall provide the agency an opportunity to cure such defect. After his preliminary examination, and after affording the State agency such opportunity to cure defects, the Assistant Regional Director shall submit the plan to the Assistant Secretary.
( c ) Upon receipt of the plan from the Assistant Regional Director, the Assistant Secretary shall examine the plan and supporting materials. If the examination discloses no cause for rejecting the plan, the Assistant Secretary shall follow the procedure prescribed in § 1902.11. If the examination discloses cause for rejection of the plan, the Assistant Secretary shall follow the procedure prescribed in § 1902.17.
[36 FR 20751, Oct. 29, 1971, as amended at 80 FR 49903, Aug. 18, 2015]
CLEAN AIR ACT ADVISORY COMMITTEECLEAN AIR ACT ADVISORY COMMITTEEGreener Gas Cleaner AirGreener Gas Cleaner Air1LEHR Incorporated 2009Proprietary & Confidential – DO NOT DISCLOSELeading ProductsLeading ProductsEcoTrimmerConsumer-Dec. 2008Mid Range Commercial –Sep.2009Commercial –Apr. 2010Page 2Proprietary & Confidential – DO NOT DISCLOSEEcoMowerSeptember2009EcoBlowerAugust 2009Per Unit Reduction from LEHRProductsCONSUMER POLLUTION REDUCTIONEPA STANDARDPollution Reduction Per UnitHC + NoxCOEvaporativeEmissionsPounds Per kWh EPA Standard0.110421.777830.63597Pounds Per kWh EPA LEHR0.038210.449200.00000Units111Hours Per Unit Operated Annually8.66678.6667365Pounds of Pollutant @ EPA Standard (per unit)0.9615.41232.13Pounds of Pollutant @ LEHR (per unit)0.333.890.00Potential Pounds Pollution Reduction (per unit)0.6311.51232.13COMMERCIAL POLLUTION REDUCTIONEPA STANDARDPollution Reduction Per UnitHC + NoxCOEvaporativeEmissionsPounds Per kWh EPA Standard0.110421.777830.63597Pounds Per kWh EPA LEHR0.038210.449200.00000Units111Hours Per Unit Operated Annually600600365Pounds of Pollutant @ EPA Standard (per unit)66.251,066.70232.13Pounds of Pollutant @ LEHR (per unit)22.93269.520.00Potential Pounds Pollution Reduction (per unit)43.33797.18232.13Proprietary & Confidential – DO NOT DISCLOSEPage 3Potential Pollution Reductionfrom First 3 LEHR ProductsProprietary & Confidential – DO NOT DISCLOSEPage 4UNIT SALES20082009201020112012LEHR Consumer Units in Use1,69696,867203,226441,352848,032LEHR Commercial Units in Use048627,484113,568305,136REDUCTION IN POLLUTION (pounds per compound)HC + NOx(1,061)(81,678)(1,317,944)(5,196,655)(13,751,040)CO(19,529)(1,502,831)(24,249,549)(95,616,008)(253,012,660)Evaporative Emissions(393,691)(22,598,343)(53,554,319)(128,813,052)(267,683,863)Particulates-97.0%-97.0%-97.0%-97.0%-97.0%Carciogenic Compounds Burned-96.0%-96.0%-96.0%-96.0%-96.0%How Can the EPA Improve•Measure Particulates in Class IV Engines•Legislate Stricter Standard for Commercial Users•Early Introduction of a Phase IV•Support “Greener Gardens Bill” (Leahy, Sanders, Welch)Proprietary & Confidential – DO NOT DISCLOSEPage 5THANK YOUFOR CARING...Proprietary & Confidential – DO NOT DISCLOSEPage 6
§ 779.255 Meaning of “gasoline service establishment.” ( a ) A gasoline service station or establishment is one which is typically a physically separate place of business engaged primarily (“primarily” meaning 50 percent or more) in selling gasoline and lubricating oils to the general public at the station or establishment. It may also sell other merchandise or perform minor repair work as an incidental part of the business. (See S. Rept. 145, 87th Cong., first session, p. 32.) No difference in application of the terms “gasoline service establishment” and “gasoline service station” was intended by Congress (see Senate Report cited above) and both carry the same meaning.
( b ) Under section 3(s)(5) of the prior Act and until February 1, 1969, under section 3(s)(1) of the amended Act, the covered enterprise is always a single establishment—a gasoline service establishment, even though such establishment may be a part of some larger enterprise for purposes of other provisions of the “enterprise” coverage of the new amendments. As noted above this term refers to what is commonly known as a gasoline service station, a separate “establishment.” What constitutes a separate establishment is discussed in §§ 779.303 through 779.306. While receipts from incidental sales and services are included and counted in determining the establishment's annual gross volume of sales for purposes of enterprise coverage, the establishment's primary source of receipts must be from the sale of gasoline and lubricating oils. (See Senate Report cited above.) An establishment which derives the greater part of its income from the sales of goods other than gasoline or lubricating oils will not be considered a “gasoline service establishment.” The mere fact that an establishment has a gasoline pump as an incidental part of other business activities in which it is principally engaged does not constitute it “a gasoline service establishment” within the meaning and for the purposes of these sections.
MEMORANDUM

FROM: Keith Barnett, EPA, Environmental Engineer

TO: Portland Cement NESHAP Docket

DATE: July 26, 2011

RE: Addition of document to administrative record

The notice denying reconsiderati on of the various petitions to reconsider the cement kiln NESHAP referred to comments submitted by the Po rtland Cement Association to a different EPA rulemaking involving standards for commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators. See 76 FR at 28322/3. However, EPA inadvertently did not also place these comments in the reconsideration docket, and is now doing so. Becau se the reconsideration notice refers to these comments, there is no prejudice to any part y in this late addition to the record.