alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 109-45.304-2.50 Negotiated sales and negotiated sales at fixed prices by designated contractors. ( a ) Negotiated sales by designated contractors of surplus contractor inventory may be made when the DOE contracting officer determines and documents prior to the sale that the use of this method of sale is justified on the basis of the circumstances enumerated below, provided that the Government's interests are adequately protected. These sales shall be at prices which are fair and reasonable and not less than the proceeds which could reasonably be expected to be obtained if the personal property was offered for competitive sale. Specific conditions justifying negotiated sales include: ( 1 ) No acceptable bids have been received as a result of competitive bidding under a suitable advertised sale;
( 2 ) Personal property is of such small value that the proceeds to be derived would not warrant the expense of a formal competitive sale;
( 3 ) The disposal will be to a state, territory, possession, political subdivision thereof, or tax-supported agency therein, and the estimated fair market value of the personal property and other satisfactory terms of disposal are obtained by negotiation;
( 4 ) The specialized nature and limited use potential of the personal property would create negligible bidder interest;
( 5 ) Removal of the personal property would result in a significant reduction in value, or the accrual of disproportionate expense in handling; or
( 6 ) It can be clearly established that such action is in the best interests of the Government.
( b ) When determined to be in the best interests of the Government, Program Secretarial Officer (PSO) may authorize fixed-price sales of surplus contractor inventory by designated contractors provided: ( 1 ) The fair market value of the item to be sold does not exceed $15,000;
( 2 ) Adequate procedures for publicizing such sales have been established;
( 3 ) The sales prices are not less than could reasonably be expected if competitive bid sales methods were employed and the prices have been approved by a reviewing authority designated by the head of the field organization; and
( 4 ) The warranty prescribed in § 109-45.302-50(a) of this subpart is obtained when sales are made to employees.
ex_163624.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 


OUTSIDE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PACKAGE


 


Effective January 1, 2020, Atlanticus Holdings Corporation (the “Company”) will pay each outside director who is independent in accordance with the NASDAQ and SEC rules governing director independence (an “Eligible Director”) the following for service to the Company:


 


	
			Annual Cash Retainer

				 	$	50,000	 
	
			Attendance Fee for Each Board Meeting (including telephonic attendance)

				 	$	3,000	 
	
			Attendance Fee for Each Committee Meeting (including telephonic attendance)

				 	$	1,500	 



 


In addition, the Chairman of the Audit Committee will receive an additional annual fee of $25,000.  The Chairman of each of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and the Compensation Committee will receive an additional annual fee of $10,000.   The Annual Cash Retainer and the Committee Chair fees will be paid in quarterly installments.


 


Each Eligible Director also will receive a restricted stock award of 7,000 shares, such grant to be effective on January 2, 2020.  The restricted stock award will vest in two equal annual installments beginning on the first anniversary of the grant date. 


 


The Company also will reimburse all reasonable out-of-pocket travel expenses that are incurred in connection with board and committee meetings.
Exhibit 32.1

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

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 American Vanguard Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2010 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on their 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 represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|                                         
|/s/    ERIC G.
WINTEMUTE                 
|Eric G. Wintemute
Chief Executive Officer



|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    DAVID T.
JOHNSON                                                
|David T. Johnson
Chief Financial Officer & Principal Accounting Officer
|                                                                       

May 6, 2010

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 required by Section 906, has been provided to American Vanguard Corporation and will be retained by American Vanguard Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
**Exhibit 32**

** **

**CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Andersen Group, Inc. forthe period ended November 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Oliver R.Grace, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer, and Andrew M. O'Shea, ChiefFinancial Officer, each hereby certifies, that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1)  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and   

(2)  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Andersen Group, Inc. 

|  | /s/ Oliver R. Grace, Jr.Oliver R. Grace, Jr.  President and Chief Executive Officer |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  |                                                                                |
|  | /s/ Andrew M. O'SheaAndrew M. O'Shea  Chief Financial Officer                       |

January14, 2004

Thiscertification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of § 18 of the Securities andExchange Act of 1934, as amended or otherwise subject to the liability of thatsection.  This certification shall notbe deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the SecuritiesAct of 1933, as amended and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates this Exhibit32 by reference in any such filing.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

ALFONSO CERVANTES REYES,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-10365

D.C. No. 5:05-cr-00516-EJD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 25, 2016**

Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. 

Alfonso Cervantes Reyes appeals pro se from the district court’s order 

denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The government objects to the timeliness of the appeal. Construing 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 1 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 15-10365 

Cervantes Reyes’s pro se filings liberally, see Orona v. United States, 826 F.3d 

1196, 1199 (9th Cir. 2016), we treat his motion to vacate the district court’s order 

denying his motion for a sentence reduction as a motion for reconsideration. So 

treated, Cervantes Reyes’s notice of appeal was timely filed. See United States v. 

Belgarde, 300 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2002) (“A motion for reconsideration is 

timely if it is filed within the time for appeal . . . and an appeal is timely if it is 

filed within the time to appeal after the denial of the motion for reconsideration.”) 

Cervantes Reyes contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under 

Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a 

district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See 

United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). Assuming without 

deciding that Cervantes Reyes is eligible for a two-point reduction in his base 

offense level, the district court correctly concluded that Cervantes Reyes is 

ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 because his sentence is 

already below the minimum of the amended Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (“[T]he court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of 

imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that 

is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.”). Cervantes Reyes’s 
 3 15-10365 

claims to the contrary are not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See 

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010) (section 3582(c)(2) does not 

permit a “plenary resentencing proceeding”).

To the extent that Cervantes Reyes claims that the district court erred by 

failing to grant his motion for an extension of time to file a reply to the 

government’s opposition to his motion for a sentence reduction, the district court 

did not abuse its discretion because Cervantes Reyes is not entitled to a sentence 

reduction. See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987). 

AFFIRMED.
###### Editorial Note on Subpart 101-6.2 of Part 101-6

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 101-6 appear at 68 FR 51373, Aug. 26, 2003.

#### § 101-6.213-2 Decisions on record or review by the responsible GSA official.

Whenever a record is certified to the responsible GSA official for decision or he reviews the decision of a hearing examiner pursuant to § 101-6.213-1, or whenever the responsible GSA official conducts the hearing, the applicant or recipient shall be given reasonable opportunity to file with him briefs or other written statements of its contentions, and a copy of the final decision of the responsible GSA official shall be given in writing to the applicant or recipient, and to the complainant, if any.
§ 302-6.31 What is a “compelling reason” warranting extension of my authorized period for claiming TQSE-LP or TQSE-AE reimbursement? A “compelling reason” is an event that is beyond your control and is acceptable to your agency. Examples include, but are not limited to: ( a ) Delivery of your household goods to your new residence is delayed due to availability of service providers, pandemics, strikes, customs clearance, hazardous weather, fires, floods or other acts of God, or similar events.
( b ) You cannot occupy your new permanent residence because of unanticipated problems (*e.g.,* delay in settlement on the new residence, or short-term delay in construction of the residence).
( c ) You are unable to locate a permanent residence that is adequate for your family's needs because of housing conditions at your new official station.
( d ) Sudden illness, injury, your death or the death of your immediate family member.
§ 51-4.4 Subcontracting. ( a ) Nonprofit agencies shall seek broad competition in the purchase of materials and components used in the commodities and services furnished to the Government under the JWOD Act. Nonprofit agencies shall inform the Committee, through their central nonprofit agency, before entering into multiyear contracts for materials or components used in the commodities and services furnished to the Government under the JWOD Act.
( b ) Each nonprofit agency shall accomplish the maximum amount of subcontracting with other nonprofit agencies and small business concerns that the nonprofit agency finds to be consistent both with efficient performance in furnishing commodities or services under the JWOD Act and maximizing employment for persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
( c ) Nonprofit agencies may subcontract a portion of the process for producing a commodity or providing a service on the Procurement List provided that the portion of the process retained by the prime nonprofit agency generates employment for persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. Subcontracting intended to be a routine part of the production of a commodity or provision of a service shall be identified to the Committee at the time the commodity or service is proposed for addition to the Procurement List and any significant changes in the extent of subcontracting must be approved in advance by the Committee.
( d ) A nonprofit agency may not subcontract the entire production process for all or a portion of an order without the Committee's prior approval.
[56 FR 48980, Sept. 26, 1991, as amended at 62 FR 66529, Dec. 19, 1997]
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 82

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the Civil Service

Retirement and Disability Fund be excluded from the budget of the

United States Government.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 6, 1999

Mr. BILIRAKIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and in addition to the

Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the

Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund be excluded

from the budget of the United States Government.

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

3 That section 8348 of title 5, United States Code, is

4 amended by adding at the end the following:

5 ‘‘(n) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the

6 receipts and disbursements of the Fund—
2

HR 82 IH

1 ‘‘(1) shall not be included in the totals of—

2 ‘‘(A) the budget of the United States Gov3 ernment as submitted by the President; or

4 ‘‘(B) the congressional budget (including

5 allocations of budget authority and outlays pro6 vided therein);

7 ‘‘(2) shall be exempt from any general budget

8 limitation imposed by statute on expenditures and

9 net lending (budget outlays) of the United States

10 Government; and

11 ‘‘(3) shall be exempt from any order issued

12 under part C of the Balanced Budget and Emer13 gency Deficit Control Act of 1985.’’.

Æ
#### § 302-3.507 Once we authorize relocation expenses for new appointees or student trainees what expenses must we pay?

Once you authorize relocation expenses for new appointees or student trainees, you must pay expenses in accordance with § 302-3.2.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [WY070-00-EJ]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Correction of dates in Notice of Intent (NOI) to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Oil and Gas Development in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming, published on June 21, 2000. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice provides a correction of the dates included in the “Dates” Section of the above referenced NOI. The revised section is included below.

# DATES:

Comments to be considered in the draft EIS from the scoping period should be submitted by July 31, 2000. The draft EIS should be available for public review by April 15, of 2001.

# ADDRESSES:

Questions or concerns should be addressed to Paul Beels in the BLM Buffalo Field Office, 1425 Fort Street, Buffalo, WY 82834.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul Beels, phone 307-684-1100.

Dated: June 22, 2000.

Alan L. Kesterke,

Associate State Director.

[FR Doc. 00-16284  Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-22-M
February 23, 1979

404 A.2d 1354

#### Commonwealth v. Bariana, Appellant.

Submitted March 20, 1978.

Michael J. Wetmore, Public Defender, for appellant; James F. Marsh, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

JACOBS, former P. J., and HOFFMAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
***Exhibit 32.2***

 

***CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906***

***OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002***

* *

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), theundersigned officer of American Science & Engineering, Inc., aMassachusetts corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to suchofficer’s knowledge and belief, that: (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended December 31, 2003 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and (2) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

* *

* *
| * /s/ Paul Theodore Owens*                                    |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| *Paul Theodore Owens*                                              |
| *Executive Vice President,  Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer* |
|                                                               |
| February 23, 2004                                                  |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6659

LEONEL AYALA, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-686-BO) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 4, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leonel Ayala, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Leonel Ayala, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 both 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, , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ayala has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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