alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2














Section 1350


CERTIFICATION








The undersigned officer hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of COMFORCE Corporation for the quarter ended September 26, 2010 as to which this Certification is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and (2) the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of COMFORCE Corporation.







Signed November 5, 2010.








/s/ Robert F. EndeRobert F. EndeSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### § 50-204.69 Nitrous oxide.

The piped systems for the in-plant transfer and distribution of nitrous oxide shall be designed, installed, maintained, and operated in accordance with Compressed Gas Association Pamphlet G-8.1-1964.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-24029-BLOOM

JOB DORRIELAN, 

Petitioner,

v.

ICE, et. al., 

Respondent.

/

ORDER ON MOTION TO AMEND PREVIOUS HABEAS PETITION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Previous Habeas 

Petition (“Motion”), docketed on March 7, 2023. ECF No. [27]. In the Motion, Petitioner requested 

that the Court allow him to file an “amended habeas petition.” Id. at 1. The Amended Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Amended Petition”) describes a custody review 

that took place on March 6, 2023. Id. at 3. The Amended Petition is signed and “03/06/23” is 

written above a line indicating when the Amended Petition was executed. Id. at 7.

On March 8, 2023, the Court ordered Respondent to Show Cause directing them to file a 

status report concerning Petitioner’s removal to Haiti. ECF No. [28]. Respondents filed a status 

report, ECF Nos. [29] and [30], explaining that Petitioner was removed from the United States to 

Haiti on February 28, 2023. ECF No. [29-1] at 2. Respondents further explained that they were 

surprised by the Amended Petition. ECF No. [30] at 1. Respondents represent that there was no 

custody review on March 6, 2023, and Respondents presume that Petitioner prepared and postdated the Amended Petition at some point prior to February 28, 2023, and that Petitioner “had 

someone file it on his behalf from within the United States after Petitioner was removed.” Id. at 1.

Case 1:22-cv-24029-BB Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2023 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 22-cv-24029-BLOOM

2

Because the record shows that Petitioner has been removed from the United States and is 

no longer in custody, the Motion is moot. Soliman v. INS, 296 F.3d 1237, 1243 (11th Cir. 2002) 

(“it is abundantly clear that [Petitioner’s] appeal is now moot because . . . [Petitioner] is no longer 

being detained by the INS”).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner’s Motion, ECF No. [27], 

is DENIED AS MOOT. The case shall remain CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on March 8, 2023.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Noticing 2241/Bivens US Attorney 

Email: usafls-2255@usdoj.gov 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Noticing INS Attorney 

Email: usafls-immigration@usdoj.gov 

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 1:22-cv-24029-BB Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2023 Page 2 of 2
Argued and submitted May 23,

judgment in CA A76983 affirmed; vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded in CA A76984 July 19,

Culley’s petition for review denied October 3, 1995 (322 Or 168)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*RONALD DUANE CULLEY, *Appellant.*STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*RONALD DUANE CULLEY, *Appellant.*

(91-646; CA A76983 (Control))

(92-08-326CR; CA A76984)

(Cases Consolidated)

899 P2d 732

David K. Allen, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.

Janie M. Burcart, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Landau and Leeson, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*537PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from multiple convictions for sexual crimes and from his convictions for solicitation to commit, murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The cases were consolidated for sentencing and defendant also appeals his sentences. We find no error in defendant’s assignments regarding his convictions for sexual crimes and write only to address his assignment that the trial court erred in convicting him on both the solicitation and conspiracy charges.

The state concedes that defendant was improperly convicted of both conspiracy and solicitation to commit murder based on the same conduct. ORS 161.485(2). We accept the concession. The state says that the judgment should reflect only a conviction for solicitation to commit murder. Defendant does not contend otherwise.

Judgment in CA A76983 affirmed; in CA A76984, conviction for conspiracy to commit murder vacated; conviction for solicitation to commit murder affirmed and remanded for resentencing.
V

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4164

To clear certain impediments to the licensing of a vessel for employment

in the coastwise trade and fisheries of the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 24, 1994

Mr. GILCHREST introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL

To clear certain impediments to the licensing of a vessel

for employment in the coastwise trade and fisheries of

the United States.

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

3 That, notwithstanding sections 12105, 12106, 12107, and

4 12108 of title 46, United States Code, and section 27 of

5 the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883),

6 as applicable on the date of this Act, the Secretary of the

7 Department in which the Coast Guard is operating may

8 issue a certificate of documentation for the following ves9 sels:
2

HR 4164 IH

1 (1) MEMORY MAKER (United States official num2 ber 3151059).

Æ
# Comments on: 2020-1175: Veterans4You LLC v. US
Wesley	W.	Myers,	Jr.			Section	333	Exemption	Petition			(954)261
- 5568			WesMyers007@gmail.com Page 1 **Wes ley W.**  **Myers , Jr.**  **, Dania Beach, Fl. -**  **Section 333 Amendment to**  **Exemption # 11592**  May 18, 2015 Docket Operations, M

- 30 U. S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Room W12
- 140, West Building Ground Floor Washington, DC 20590

-0001
Re: Request for an amendment to FAA Exemption # 11592
Dear Sir or Madam: I am requesting an amendment to my granted exemption # 11592 in order to add two additional models of UAVs and to relieve certain PIC currency requirements. **1. I am requesting t o add The Phantom 3 Professional, Phantom 3 Advanced and The Inspire 1 UAVs**  **all of which are manufactured by DJI.** The Phantom 3 is the most recent version in the Phantom line which has already been approved in my exemption. The physical and flight char acteristics are virtually the same as the Phantom 2 UAVs which are already approved in my exemption. The DJI Inspire 1 meets all of the criteria of my exemption and has been previously approved in numerous granted exemptions including Exemption # 11537, N ew Story Media, LLC and Exemption #11590, Simon Feldman Studio, Inc. **2. I am requesting relief from the FLIGHT PORTION ONLY of #13 in the Conditions and Limitations section of my exemption requir**  **ing , in my case,**  **a Biennia l Flight Review in a fixed wing ma**  **nned aircraft**  **pursuant to 14CFR -**  **61.56 .**  With the expense of renting aircraft and hiring flight instructors the flight portion of this requirement is an unnecessary burden on the PIC and has no material be aring regarding piloting small U nmanned Aerial Vehicles. It is understood that The FAA's main objective of this requirement is to insure that all PICs remain up to date on current regulations, policies, procedures and changes thereto. This objective will be met by complying with the ground portion of the BFR requirement which will remain as a requirement. Should you have any questions aor require any additional information please contact the undersigned. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully, Wesley W Myers, Jr.Wesley	W.	Myers,	Jr.			Section	333	Exemption	Petition			(954)261
- 5568			WesMyers007@gmail.com Page 2
§ 60-2.16 Placement goals. ( a ) Purpose: Placement goals serve as objectives or targets reasonably attainable by means of applying every good faith effort to make all aspects of the entire affirmative action program work. Placement goals also are used to measure progress toward achieving equal employment opportunity.
( b ) A contractor's determination under § 60-2.15 that a placement goal is required constitutes neither a finding nor an admission of discrimination.
( c ) Where, pursuant to § 60-2.15, a contractor is required to establish a placement goal for a particular job group, the contractor must establish a percentage annual placement goal at least equal to the availability figure derived for women or minorities, as appropriate, for that job group.
( d ) The placement goal-setting process described above contemplates that contractors will, where required, establish a single goal for all minorities. In the event of a substantial disparity in the utilization of a particular minority group or in the utilization of men or women of a particular minority group, a contractor may be required to establish separate goals for those groups.
( e ) In establishing placement goals, the following principles also apply: ( 1 ) Placement goals may not be rigid and inflexible quotas, which must be met, nor are they to be considered as either a ceiling or a floor for the employment of particular groups. Quotas are expressly forbidden.
( 2 ) In all employment decisions, the contractor must make selections in a nondiscriminatory manner. Placement goals do not provide the contractor with a justification to extend a preference to any individual, select an individual, or adversely affect an individual's employment status, on the basis of that person's race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin.
( 3 ) Placement goals do not create set-asides for specific groups, nor are they intended to achieve proportional representation or equal results.
( 4 ) Placement goals may not be used to supersede merit selection principles. Affirmative action programs prescribed by the regulations in this part do not require a contractor to hire a person who lacks qualifications to perform the job successfully, or hire a less qualified person in preference to a more qualified one.
( f ) A contractor extending a publicly announced preference for American Indians as is authorized in 41 CFR 60-1.5(a)(6) may reflect in its placement goals the permissive employment preference for American Indians living on or near an Indian reservation.
[65 FR 68042, Nov. 13, 2000, as amended at 79 FR 72995, Dec. 9, 2014]
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 Transportation

###### Coast Guard 

          - 46 CFR Parts 110 and 111
          - [USCG-1999-6096] 
          - RIN 2115-AF89 

# AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DOT. 

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting and reopening of comment period; correction. 

# SUMMARY:

This document corrects the notice of public meeting and reopening of comment period as published on June 5, 2000. In that document, the docket number was incorrectly published as USCG-2000-6096. The correct docket number is USCG-1999-6096. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For questions on the public meeting, call Dolores Mercier, Project Manager, Office of Design and Engineering Standards (G-MSE), Coast Guard, telephone 202-267-0658, fax 202-267-4816, e-mail                         *dmercier@comdt.uscg.mil.*                         For questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Dorothy Beard, Chief, Dockets, Department of Transportation, phone 202-366-9329.                     

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Background 

On June 5, 2000, the Coast Guard published a notice of public meeting and reopening of comment period (65 FR 35600). The docket number was incorrectly published. Please submit your comments to USCG-1999-6096, the correct docket number. 

      ( print page 39335)    
Dated: June 14, 2000. 

Howard L. Hime, 

Acting Director of Standards. 

[FR Doc. 00-15942 Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-15-U
#### § 302-11.420 How long can we authorize an extension for completion of the sale and purchase or lease termination transactions?

You may authorize an additional period of time, not to exceed 1 year, for completion of the sale and purchase or lease termination transactions.

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18343, Apr. 1, 2011]
No. 11-1096.

#### Hebrew *v.*Houston Media Source.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b)/RULE 15d-14(b)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

In connection with the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Analogic Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended January 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, James W.
Green, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of his 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 results of operations of
the Company.

Date: March 11, 2010



| |  |  |  |                                      
| |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
| |  |  |  | /s/ James W. Green                   
| |  |  |  |                                      
| |  |  |  | James W. Green                       
| |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
| |  |  |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
#### § 302-4.304 For relocation outside the continental United States (OCONUS), may my agency allow actual expense reimbursement instead of the POV mileage rate for PCS travel?

Yes, for an OCONUS relocation involving POV usage, your agency may allow reimbursement of certain actual expenses of using the POV (*i.e.*, fuel plus the additional expenses listed in § 301-10.304).

[FTR Amdt. 2007-06, 72 FR 70235, Dec. 11, 2007]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          21,031
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   72,373
<ALLOWANCES>                                       600
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,291
<PP&E>                                          18,662
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,195
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 114,305
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,358
<BONDS>                                          6,564
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,490
<OTHER-SE>                                      68,893
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   114,305
<SALES>                                        135,158
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135,158
<CGS>                                          104,571
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  104,571
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,851
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,967
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,587
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,380
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,380
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35
        

</TABLE>
§ 60-20.4 Discriminatory compensation. Compensation may not be based on sex. Contractors may not engage in any employment practice that discriminates in wages, benefits, or any other forms of compensation, or denies access to earnings opportunities, because of sex, on either an individual or systemic basis, including, but not limited to, the following: ( a ) Contractors may not pay different compensation to similarly situated employees on the basis of sex. For purposes of evaluating compensation differences, the determination of similarly situated employees is case-specific. Relevant factors in determining similarity may include tasks performed, skills, effort, levels of responsibility, working conditions, job difficulty, minimum qualifications, and other objective factors. In some cases, employees are similarly situated where they are comparable on some of these factors, even if they are not similar on others.
( b ) Contractors may not grant or deny higher-paying wage rates, salaries, positions, job classifications, work assignments, shifts, development opportunities, or other opportunities on the basis of sex. Contractors may not grant or deny training, apprenticeships, work assignments, or other opportunities that may lead to advancement to higher-paying positions on the basis of sex.
( c ) Contractors may not provide or deny earnings opportunities because of sex, for example, by denying women equal opportunity to obtain regularand/or overtime hours, commissions, pay increases, incentive compensation, or any other additions to regular earnings.
( d ) Contractors may not implement compensation practices that have an adverse impact on the basis of sex and are not shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.
( e ) A contractor will be in violation of Executive Order 11246 and this part any time it pays wages, benefits, or other compensation that is the result in whole or in part of the application of any discriminatory compensation decision or other practice.
No. 11-1169.

#### Bhama *v.*Michigan State Employees’ Retirement System.

Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 26, 2020

No. 04-20-00429-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF Y.Z., N.A.Z., J.F.Z., AND V.V.Z., CHILDREN

From the County Court at Law, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 3814CCL

Honorable Sergio J. Gonzalez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of the trial court’s order terminating the appellant’s parental 

rights. The appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on October 12, 2020. 

By order dated October 12, 2020, appellant’s first motion for extension of time was 

granted, extending the deadline to file the brief to October 23, 2020. Because the disposition of 

this appeal is governed by the standards set forth in Rule 6.2 of the Texas Rules of Judicial 

Administration our order noted this appeal is required to be brought to final disposition within 

180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2. Our order further 

stated, “Given the time constraints governing the disposition of this appeal, further requests for 

extensions of time will be disfavored.”

 On October 23, 2020, appellant’s attorney filed a second motion for extension of time 

requesting an additional three-day extension. The motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief must 

be filed no later than October 26, 2020. Given the time constraints governing the disposition of 

this appeal, further requests for extensions of time will be disfavored.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 26th day of October, 2020.
___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity asCEO of Analysts International Corporation (“The Company”) that the QuarterlyReport of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 28, 2003 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly represents, inall material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end ofsuch period and the results of operations of the Company for such period.

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Analysts International and will be retainedby Analysts International  and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| Dated:   August 11, 2003 | By:    | /s/ Michael J. LaVelle                |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                          |   | Michael J. LaVelle                    |
|                          |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
# Comments on: 2018-1124: Broadsoft Inc. v. CallWave Communications LLC
§ 50-203.17 Hearings. ( a ) Hearings held for the purpose of receiving evidence with regard to prevailing minimum wages in the various industries shall be conducted by an administrative law judge.
( b ) Due notice of hearing shall be published in the Federal Register.
( c ) The hearing shall be stenographically reported and a transcript made which will be available to any person at prescribed rates upon request addressed to the Secretary, United States Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210.
( d ) At the discretion of the administrative law judge, the hearing may be continued from day to day or adjourned to a later date, or to a different place by announcement thereof at the hearing or by other appropriate notice.
[17 FR 7944, Aug. 30, 1952. Redesignated at 24 FR 10952, Dec. 30, 1959, as amended at 61 FR 19988, May 3, 1996]