alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3012.4 Definitions of persons subject to ex parte communication rules. ( a ) Commission decision-making personnel include: ( 1 ) The Commissioners and their staffs;
( 2 ) The General Counsel and staff;
( 3 ) The Director of the Office of Accountability and Compliance and staff;
( 4 ) Contractors, consultants, and others hired by the Commission to assist with the Commission's analysis and decision; and
( 5 ) Any other employee who may reasonably be expected to be involved in the decisional process.
( b ) The Postal Service includes all Postal Service employees, contractors, consultants, and others with an interest in a matter before the Commission. Any interaction between the Postal Service and Commission decision-making personnel concerning a matter before the Commission expresses an interest in the matter before the Commission.
( c ) Public stakeholders include all other persons not previously described, with an interest in a matter before the Commission. This includes the Commission non-decision-making personnel identified in paragraph (d) of this section. Any interaction between a public stakeholder and Commission decision-making personnel concerning a matter before the Commission expresses an interest in the matter before the Commission.
( d ) Commission non-decision-making personnel include: ( 1 ) All Commission personnel other than decision-making personnel;
( 2 ) Commission personnel not participating in the decisional process owing to the prohibitions of § 3010.144 of this chapter regarding no participation by investigative or prosecuting officers;
( 3 ) The Public Representative and other Commission personnel assigned to represent the interests of the general public pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 in the specific case or controversy at issue (regardless of normally assigned duties); and
( 4 ) Contractors, consultants, and others hired by the Commission to provide an independent analysis of issues before the Commission (and Commission employees assigned thereto).
[81 FR 42541, June 30, 2016, as amended at 85 FR 9645, Feb. 19, 2020]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

April 29, 2013

p0422

Order 

April 29, 2013

146482

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146482

COA: 300214

Wayne CC: 09-029532-FC

JAMAR PINKNEY, SR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 15, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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 CECO Environmental Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Phillip DeZwirek, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Phillip DeZwirek                             
|Phillip DeZwirek                                 
|Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|November 9, 2006                                 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CECO Environmental
Corp. and will be retained by CECO Environmental Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



23
#### JAMES G. POWERS and another, Appellants, *v.*ANTON GROSS, Respondent.

*Costs*— *Code,*§§ *30Aa/nd*305.

Where, upon the trial of an action brought to recover damages for the wrongful conversion of personal property, alleged in the complaint to be worth $500, evidence is given tending to show that it was worth more than $400, but the jury bring in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for thirty-five dollars only, *held,*that the defendant is entitled to recover costs.

*Seaman*v. *Gleckner*(10 S. C. [3 Hun], 119) followed.

Appeal from an order made at the Special Term, denying a motion to readjust costs, and to set aside the taxation of costs by the clerk in the defendant’s favor.

*235*Estes <&*Barnard, for appellants. *J. J.*Perry, for respondent.

Opinion by

Davis, P. J.

Brady and. Daniels, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
§ 5.42 Auxiliary ensign. ( a ) *Description.* The field of the Auxiliary ensign is medium blue (Coast Guard blue) with a broad diagonal white slash upon which a matching blue Coast Guard Auxiliary emblem is centered. The white slash must be at a 70 degree angle, rising away from the hoist.
( b ) *Display.* The Auxiliary ensign may be displayed by any member of the Auxiliary on a vessel, aircraft, radio station, building, or other location at any time, under such conditions as the Commandant may direct.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Alienincarceration report.**
 
FY2017: Q4 | FY 2018: Q1Q2 | FY 2019
 
SuDoc Number:HS 1.24:
Item Number:0520-B-57 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001060558
 
June 13, 2018
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5110

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse located

at 3470 12th Street in Riverside, California, asthe ‘‘George E. Brown, Jr. United States Courthouse’’.

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5110

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse located at 3470

12th Street in Riverside, California, as the ‘‘George E.

Brown, Jr. United States Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 5110 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The United States courthouse located at 3470 12th

3 Street in Riverside, California, shall be known and des4 ignated as the ‘‘George E. Brown, Jr. United States

5 Courthouse’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

9 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

10 to be a reference to the ‘‘George E. Brown, Jr. United

11 States Courthouse’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 17,

2000.

Attest:

Clerk.
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



The following certification accompanies the issuers Annual Report on Form 10-K and is not filed, as provided in SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986 dated June 5, 2003.



In connection with the Annual Report of Eagle Bancorp (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Peter J. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Clinton J. Morrison, Chief 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, to the undersigneds knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 result of operations of the Company.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/ Peter J. Johnson                                     /s/ Clinton J. MorrisonPeter J. Johnson                                                                 Clinton J. Morrison
Chief Executive Officer                                                     Senior VP and Chief Financial Officer
September 21, 2009                                                           September 21, 2009









---
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Alico, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2011 (the Form 10-Q ), I, Scott R. Whitney, Chief Financial 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 Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|Dated: February 9, 2011                 
|/S/ SCOTT R. WHITNEY                    
|Scott R. Whitney Chief
Financial Officer
#### PEOPLE ex rel. CHARLES LEWIS and others *v.*J. F. DALY and others, Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, and ISAAC GOLDSTEIN.

*Discharge of vmpn'isoned, debtor—publication of notice necessm'y to give court jmisdic-*• *tion—Certiorari.*

Isaac Goldstein, an insolvent and imprisoned debtor, applied to the respondent for a discharge of his person from imprisonment. On the day the order to show cause was returnable, there being no opposition, the order was granted. The proceedings were removed into this court, in pursuance of section 47 (2 R. S. [Edm. ed.] 50). The relators sought a reversal, on the grounds that the notice directed by section 4 (2 R. S. [Edm. ed.], 29), was, by the order of the judge, to be published in the Daily Register and Albany Evening Journal, and was directed to be given for the 6th of June, 1874, at 11 a. m. ; that^ in fact, the publication of the notice in the Register was of an application to be made on the 3d of June, 1874, at 11 a. m., and so the proof before the officer disclosed the fact to be. The General Term *held,*that until the publication of the notice was made as directed, and proof of such publication was before the officer, he was without jurisdiction. (16 Barb., 319.)

It was claimed on the part of the respondent, that the relator having the right of appeal in the Common Pleas, the remedy by *certiorari*should be denied him; but the General Term *held,*that the statute (2 R S. [Edm. ed.], 50, § 47) was positive as to *642the relator’s right, and the court had no right to withhold what the statute gave to a party.

*James R.*Adams, for the relators.

*H. Morrison,*for the respondents.

Opinion by

Donohue, J.

Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred.

Proceedings reversed, with costs.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-12-00481-CV

ROBERT TROY MCCLURE,

Appellant

v.

T.D.C.J.,

Appellee

From the 12th District Court

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 26040

ORDER

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s motion for extension of time to file 

its brief is granted. The brief is filed the date of its receipt, June 11, 2013.

However, the brief fails to comply with our procedural rules.1 First, the Court 

received only the original copy of the brief. An original and five copies of the brief shall 

 

1 We recognize that as some courts of appeals have adopted e-filing rules, the disparity and inconsistency 

of the rules regarding the number and binding requirements for briefs and appendices has increased. 

This has increased the need for appellate practitioners across the State who practice in multiple courts of 

appeals to consult the local rules before a brief is tendered for filing. This Court has not yet transitioned 

to mandatory e-filing but will do so in the near future. Nevertheless, local rules will still need to be 
McClure v. T.D.C.J. Page 2

be filed with the Court. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.3(a)(C); 10TH TEX. APP. [WACO] LOC. R. 12(a). 

Second, the appendix was not bound. An appendix must be bound with the brief or 

bound separately, depending on whether it contains necessary contents or optional 

contents. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(h); 10TH TEX. APP. [WACO] LOC. R. 13.

Accordingly, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice is ordered to file 

additional copies of its brief and bound appendix within 14 days from the date of this 

order. The failure to timely provide additional copies of the brief and bound appendix 

will result in the Department’s brief being stricken. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a).

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted; copies ordered

Order issued and filed June 13, 2013

 

consulted for filing requirements until the Texas Supreme Court adopts state-wide mandatory e-filing 

rules.
Order entered February 8, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00639
- CR
JOEL ERCEDES VILLATO RO, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 2 83rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16
- 75768
- T



### O RDER Appellant , who was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years of age, filed his brief January 29, 2019, along with an appendix to the brief. Documents in the appendix refer to the victim by name. Accordingly, w e STRIKE the appendix. Because criminal briefs are not required to contain an appendix, see T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 38.1(k) , we decline to order that appellant refile his appendix referring to the victim either generically or by initials only

. However, if appellant wishes to refile the appendix, he must do so without using the victim’s name.
/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
P 

OFFICE OF THE AHORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

we have your letter 

read8 La part ar ToXlowrt 

dkreten% from t&e first quctk 

which to be recognized In Faxes8 howewr, 

the portion of the last qprctation which no hare 

undsr8oared muld lead us to believe that only 

x and m en;y oi the ooam3ltleo rafartwd~to 

In that paragraph drs wetiaheQ tw determfne the 

raount sola or aeliooreu, wui* the weight man-. 

tioned in the artlolr be the Uetemintng faotar 

in estr;blishing ‘Cme Cubic Yard,* while tn instmcee wherct the mount dellverecl is dstermln- 
Depsrtaent of Agrloulture, Page 2 

ad by l o tua 8weuruent, l *one cubio Y81d8 would 

#IOU *ii? SUbi iSOt’ PQ$CUah+S Of thS d.@t 

of tho OoBBodltJ. 

FUr f&IA In Artto1r 1048 of the Pen&l cm 

o uta ia p ua ltiol e etabllehed ior those who fall 

to M srd the unltg ot measure as eetabllaiwl 

in *c e 1010 lW4, ROJ, 1926. 

*~a mtioie 108, ma, 196s we fina the roilowing : 'The fOuoWl~? StUtUd8 of C+W8Anur 

?or the ibipunt of fruit and vegotabl.8 in this 

dtato uo hembl oeliablished aad abopted as 

Stat* etenduU8. 

'1. Standax’ Euehol 6Mk.t. The etam%u'd 

buehelba8kot rhll @oattin net1oeet&a %lso.r 

oubb iao&oe &a the bmkot 

of the saanor Sn whloh the g3: 

opu, ro#amale8e 

a is Me.' 

WttUg to the faot that the t8tuidud guelaol 

Ba8k.t’ WhSB QrOpSFlJ pS@kSd and ZtllOd with 

gnu 8pQlO8 will not wo%gh '80 poundr’ a& in 

most lnetanera, vi11 velgh oonaiderabl~ lees than 

'50 paw&at, uo *ro ffeqwntly tmnfroated with 

the quortlon of Just what shall oonetltute a 

qt3taaUar% mu&l* of green applo8.* 

jfe have given oarriul ooneiduat~on to th&r rod 

perplexing problu, and have rreohed the ooaolaeioa that 

the wall-roaeoaod umly'rie oontafned in Tour letter abwa 

quoted ir o0rroot~ I. 0.. that green applee whoa sold In 

bulk or when ~easur.c% br wlght are to bo @old upon the 

b&ta ;f If2 ;oundr to the bush01 as preeoribed by Article 

but that when green epplee uo aold in 

bush;1 ;?oai&&e the weight of euoh bushel ie lmaoterial; 
y-z 

,., t - ..- . 

aopartment al Agriculturr, Page 3 

so long as euah bushel basket oontaine %l60.4 oubio inohee 

as pre8oriboU br Artiolr 100, R. c. 8. In eaoh inetaaoo 

the *alo 58 in oocordarm with the understandlag and tatentier, of tho gertlee. 

Pours very truly 

ATTORNEY GEHXRAL OF TSXAS
Exhibit 32


                           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 amended Annual Report of Millenium Holding Group Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Richard Ham, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, respectively certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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/ Richard Ham,
----------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
December 1, 2005
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-61743-CIV-DIMITROULEAS

ITOW.BOATS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

M/V EMPIRE III, a 2005 50 Azimut 

Motor Vessel, her engines, tackle, equipment,

apparel, appurtenances, etc., in rem, and

THE EMPIRE YACHTZ, LLC,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE; GRANTING MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement 

Agreement [DE 35], and the December 22, 2023 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate 

Judge Patrick M. Hunt (the “Report”) [DE 42]. The Court notes that no objections to the Report

[DE 42] have been filed, and the time for filing such objections has passed.1 As no timely 

objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings in the Report [DE 42] are hereby 

adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749-50 

(11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 

1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993). 

 Although no timely objections were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of 

the Report [DE 42] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees 

with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusion that the Court should enter final judgment 

1 The Magistrate Judge shortened the time period for filing objections.

Case 0:22-cv-61743-WPD Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/02/2024 Page 1 of 2
against Defendant The Empire Yachtz, LLC for $35,000.00 and reserve jurisdiction to award 

attorney’s fees and costs to Plaintiff.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report [DE 42] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement [DE 35] is hereby GRANTED. 

3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 58, the Court will enter a separate 

final judgment.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, 

this 2nd day of January 2024.

Copies to:

Counsel of Record 

Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt

Case 0:22-cv-61743-WPD Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/02/2024 Page 2 of 2
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 Monumental  Marketing,  Inc. on
Form  10-KSB  for the  period  ending  September  30,  2002,  as filed  with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, KC
Quintana, President 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, to
the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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/ KC Quintana
KC Quintana
President, Director
(Principal Executive Officer)


April 19, 2004


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.1


 


Description of Verbal Management Consulting
Agreement Between Troy, Inc. and Peter Coker


 


On April
27, 2012, Peter Coker, the President and sole director of Troy, Inc. (the “Company”), verbally agreed to provide
funding to cover the costs of investigating and analyzing business combinations for the next 12 months and beyond, until the Company
is engaged in business activities that provide cash flow sufficient to cover the costs of investigating and analyzing business
combinations. We currently have no written contractual agreements in place with Mr. Coker to provide such funding. During the
next 12 months, Mr. Coker has agreed to cover costs including, but not limited to, the filing of Exchange Act reports, and consummating
an acquisition. At this time we do not have the funds to pay for these filings and do not have any written agreement to raise
funds to cover these expenses. However, we believe we will be able to meet these costs with funds provided by Mr. Coker. At such
time that the Company has the ability to cover the costs of investigating and analyzing business combinations with cash flow from
operations, Mr. Coker will no longer be obligated to cover such costs.