alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
      32(a)








This
      Certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise
      subject to the liability of that section.  This Certification shall
      not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other
      document pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated
      in
      such filing.








Certification
      Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


of
      Title
      18 of the United States Code








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of the Companies (as defined below) on
      Form
      10-Q (the “Reports”) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael
      G.
      Morris, the chief executive officer of





Appalachian
      Power Company





(the
      “Companies”), certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, based on my knowledge (i)
      the Reports fully comply with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the
      Reports fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and
      results of operations of the Companies.








/s/
      Michael G. Morris__


Michael
      G. Morris


Chief
      Executive Officer








November
      2, 2007








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by American Electric
      Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or
      its staff upon request.
#### MARGARET DICKSON, *et al.*v. ROBERT RUCHO, *et al.*NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF BRANCHES OF THE NAACP, *et al.*v. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, *et al.*

From Wake County

No. 201PA12-3

ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellants’ Rule 31 Petition for Rehearing is denied as to the second and third issues. As to the remaining first issue, plaintiff-appellants’ petition is dismissed on procedural grounds. Plaintiff-appellants waived review of this argument by failing to raise it in their brief on remand. *See*N.C. R. App. P. 28(a) (“Issues not presented and discussed in a party’s brief are deemed abandoned.”); N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (“Issues not presented in a party’s brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated, will be taken as abandoned.”).

This Court’s 18 December 2015 opinion is modified as follows: the sentence stating “Alabama’s Constitution does not contain a Whole County Provision” is deleted, and the words in the next sentence, “that state,” are replaced with the word, “Alabama.” *Dickson v. Rucho,*No. 201PA12-3, 2015 N.C. LEXIS 1281, at *34 (Dec. 18, 2015).

By order of the Court in Conference, this 11th day of February, 2016.

s/Ervin, J.

For the Court

WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this the 11th day of February, 2016.

CHRISTIE S. CAMERON ROEDER Clerk of the Supreme Court

s/M.C. Hacknev Assistant Clerk
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

THOMAS COMPTOIS

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 6

- 00 2 40

- C R

Appeal from the

120 th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20150D05389 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time within which to

file the brief until May 20

, 201 7

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

F ILE THE APPELLANT’S B R IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Charles Louis Roberts, the Appellant’s attorney,

prepare the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before May 20 , 201 7

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 24 th day of April , 20 1 7

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4522

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to extend the authorization

of appropriations of the Federal Communications Commission, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 26, 1994

Mr. MARKEY (for himself and Mr. FIELDS of Texas) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to extend the

authorization of appropriations of the Federal Communications Commission, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Communica5 tions Commission Authorization Act of 1994’’.

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY.

7 Section 6 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47

8 U.S.C. 156) is amended to read as follows:
2

•HR 4522 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

2 ‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated for the ad3 ministration of this Act by the Commission $188,400,000

4 for fiscal year 1995, together with such sums as may be

5 necessary for increases resulting from adjustments in sal6 ary, pay, retirement, other employee benefits required by

7 law, and other nondiscretionary costs, for fiscal year 1995.

8 Of the sum appropriated in each fiscal year under this

9 section, a portion, in an amount determined under section

10 9(b), shall be derived from fees authorized by section 9.’’.

Æ
§ 50-204.30 Notification of incidents. ( a ) *Immediate notification.* Each employer shall immediately notify the Regional Director of the appropriate Wage and Labor Standards Administration, Office of Occupational Safety of the Bureau of Labor Standards of the U.S. Department of Labor, for employees not protected by AEC by means of 10 CFR part 20, § 50-204.34(b) of this part, or the requirements of the laws and regulations of States named in § 50-204.34(c), by telephone or telegraph of any incident involving radiation which may have caused or threatens to cause: ( 1 ) Exposure of the whole body of any individual to 25 rems or more of radiation; exposure of the skin of the whole body of any individual to 150 rems or more of radiation; or exposure of the feet, ankles, hands, or forearms of any individual to 375 rems or more of radiation; or
( 2 ) The release of radioactive material in concentrations which, if averaged over a period of 24 hours, would exceed 5,000 times the limit specified for such materials in Table II of appendix B to 10 CFR part 20.
( 3 ) A loss of 1 working week or more of the operation of any facilities affected; or
( 4 ) Damage to property in excess of $100,000.
( b ) *Twenty-four hour notification.* Each employer shall within 24 hours following its occurrence notify the Regional Director of the appropriate Wage and Labor Standards Administration, Office of Occupational Safety of the Bureau of Labor Standards of the U.S. Department of Labor, for employees not protected by AEC by means of 10 CFR part 20, § 50-204.34(b) of this part, or the requirements of the laws and applicable regulations of States named in § 50-204.34(c), by telephone or telegraph of any incident involving radiation which may have caused or threatens to cause: ( 1 ) Exposure of the whole body of any individual to 5 rems or more of radiation; exposure of the skin of the whole body of any individual to 30 rems or more of radiation; or exposure of the feet, ankles, hands, or forearms to 75 rems or more of radiation; or
( 2 ) A loss of 1 day or more of the operation of any facilities; or
( 3 ) Damage to property in excess of $10,000.
039P14-2

#### Robert S. Chamberlain v. Kristy M. Newton and Kristin C. McCrary

Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Motion for Complaint/ Grievance/Petition

Dismissed

Ervin, J.,

recused
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1573** 

In R e: NICHOLAS JAMES QUEEN, SR. , Petitioner
.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
. (1:93

- cr - 00366

- WMN

- 1)

Submitted : August 12, 2013 Decided: August 22, 2013

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
. Nicholas James Queen, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Nicholas Queen, Sr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order exempting him from the “gate

- keeping” standard of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013). We deny the petition. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circums tances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed . Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Queen has failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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. PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SciQuest, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    [Reserved]c.
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd.
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and to the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a.
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 By:
    
    /s/ Stephen J. Wiehe

Stephen J. WiehePresident, Chief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer)Date:
    
    November 12, 2010
AFS-10-288 May 26, 2010

Mr. Richard D. Blosser

3037 Lakeview Terrace Fullerton, CA 92835

Dear Mr. Blosser

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for reconsideration from § 61.303(b)(2), Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot

process your request.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your April 23, 2010, petition for reconsideration into the public docket (No. FAA2008-1223), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.101 (copy enclosed). For us to consider your petition, you must show the following:

 That you have a significant additional fact and why you did not present it in your original petition.

 That we made an important factual error in our denial of your original petition; or

 That we did not correctly interpret a law, regulation, or precedent.

For the reasons above, no further action will be taken on your petition and the docket will be

closed.

Sincerely,

/s/

Ida M. Klepper Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
§ 51-2.6 Reconsideration of Committee decision. ( a ) The Committee may reconsider its decision to add items to the Procurement List if it receives pertinent information which was not before it when it initially made the decision. Unless otherwise provided by the Committee, requests for reconsideration from interested persons must be received by the Committee within 60 days following the effective date of the addition in question. A request for reconsideration must include the specific facts believed by the interested person to justify a decision by the Committee to modify or reverse its earlier action.
( b ) In reconsidering its decision, the Committee will balance the harm to the party requesting reconsideration if the item remains on the Procurement List against the harm which the nonprofit agency or its employees who are blind or have other severe disabilities would suffer if the item were deleted from the Procurement List. The Committee may also consider information bringing into question its conclusions on the suitability criteria on which it based its original decision as factors weighing toward a decision to delete the item, and information concerning possible harm to the Government and the JWOD Program as factors weighing toward confirmation of the original decision.
[56 FR 48977, Sept. 26, 1991, as amended at 59 FR 59342, Nov. 16, 1994]
#### § 109-1.102 Federal Property Management Regulations/Federal Management Regulation.
#### § 27.1222 Operations in the 2568-2572 and 2614-2618 bands.

All operations in the 2568-2572 and 2614-2618 MHz bands shall be secondary to adjacent-channel operations. Stations operating in the 2568-2572 and 2614-2618 MHz must not cause interference to licensees in operation in the LBS, MBS, and UBS and must accept any interference from any station operating in the LBS, MBS, and UBS in compliance with the rules established in this subpart. Stations operating in the 2568-2572 and 2614-2618 bands may cause interference to stations in operation in the LBS, MBS, and UBS if the affected licensees consent to such interference.
No. 11-5160.

#### Buchanan *v.*Texas.

Ct. App. Tex., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                            4,083
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    84,908
<ALLOWANCES>                                        876
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 92,882
<PP&E>                                           17,084
<DEPRECIATION>                                    4,960
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  250,125
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            32,512
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                            164
<OTHER-SE>                                       41,496
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    250,125
<SALES>                                         106,845
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                106,845
<CGS>                                            85,795
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   102,846
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    (53)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                5,594
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (1,542)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,542)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (1,542)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (.09)


</TABLE>
#### § 302-6.14 When does my authorized period for TQSE reimbursement end?

The period for TQSE reimbursement ends at midnight on either the day before you and/or any member of your immediate family occupies permanent residence quarters (even if some, but not all household goods have been delivered such that the residence is suitable for permanent occupancy), or the day your authorized period for TQSE reimbursement expires, whichever occurs first. (See § 302-6.207 for details.)
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.iii.g
THE MOSAIC COMPANY
SUMMARY OF BOARD OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
Non-Employee Directors
Effective January 1, 2017, the policy adopted by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of The Mosaic Company (“Mosaic”) provides for cash compensation to non-employee directors as follows:
	
				
	 
	●
	 
	an annual cash retainer of $160,000 to the Chairman of the Board and $80,000 to each other director;




	
				
	 
	●
	 
	an annual cash retainer of $20,000 to the Chairman of the Audit Committee;




	
				
	 
	●
	 
	an annual cash retainer of $15,000 to the Chairman of the Compensation Committee; and




	
				
	 
	●
	 
	an annual cash retainer of $10,000 to each director who serves as Chair of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee or Environmental, Health, Safety and Sustainable Development Committee.




In addition, the policy adopted by the Board provides for an annual grant of restricted stock units providing grants of Mosaic common stock, valued at $240,000 for the Chairman of the Board and $145,000 for each other director.
Mosaic reimburses directors for travel and business expenses incurred in connection with meeting attendance. Mosaic does not pay meeting fees or provide any perquisites to our non-employee directors except for reimbursement of travel expenses when spouses attend Board functions. 
Employee Directors
Directors who are employees receive no director fees or other separate compensation for service on the Board or any committee of the Board for the period during which they are employees.
#### DOMESTIC FABRICS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-1051, 04-1095.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 10, 2004.

ORDER

Cross-Appellant having paid the initial filing fee, it is ORDERED that the order of dismissal and the mandate be, and the same hereby are, VACATED and RE*410CALLED, and the notice of cross-appeal is REINSTATED.
2458 

2459 

2460 

2461 

2462 

2463 

2464 

2465 

2466 

2467 

2468 

2469 

2470 

2471 

2472 

2473 

2474 

2475 

2476 

2477 

2478 

2479 

2480 

2481 

2482 

2483 

2484 

2485 

2486 

2487 

2488 

2489 

2490 

2491 

2492 

2493 

2494 

2495 

2496 

2497 

2498 

2499 

2500 

2501 

2502 

2503 

2504 

2505 

2506 

2507 

2508 

2509 

2510 

2511 

2512 

2513 

2514 

2515 

2516 

2517 

2518 

2519 

2520 

2521 

2522 

2523 

2524 

2525 

2526 

2527 

2528 

2529 

2530 

2531 

2532 

2533 

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2010-12-23T16:22:40-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number, 

($3*6) ll-E-209 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:12 AM Sheet 249 of 264 
P.2 

A-^51. 

Mr. James Stone 

Page 1 

CONTACT REPORT 

Person Calling: 

Person Called: 

Date of Contact: 

Keith Barnett 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

OAQPS/ESD/OCG 

919-541-5605 

Mr. James Stone 

Durr Environmental, Inc. 

3213 Charlemagne 

St. Charles JX 

630-587-9960 

June 26, 2000 

JAN I 9200/ 

EPA AIR nnr^cr 

Contact Summary: 

Jim stated that the regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTO) emit 30-50 ppm of carbon monoxide at 

1500 °F. Thermal NOx emissions are 10 ppm or less. The temperature at Aker Plastics is 

1575°F. 

Concentrator systems have an overall efficiency of 96 to 98 percent. The turn down ratios for air 

flow are 1/10 to 1/15. The RTO itself has a 99 percent destruction efficiency at 1500 to 1575 ° F. 

There are approximately 400 concentrator systems installed in the U. S. There are a couple of 

fixed bed zeolite systems. There is another Durr rotary concentrator system starting up at Long 

Beach, but it is probably on the paint lint only. 

Most of the existing systems are surface finishing operations. The VOC levels in the exhaust are 

200 ppm if a spray booth, but are usually much lower. They have installed systems at ppm levels 

as high as 800 ppm. One hundred ppm levels are real common. Automated spray booths tend to 

have higher ppm levels in the exhaust. 

Core materials only controls the aging room with their add-on control. 

A lot of surface coating facilities have permanent total enclosures.
p130208.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0208

Focus Ready Draft 1/31/2013

ENGINEER: Choudhary \ EV

PV (kg/yr): 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 1
p130208.eng

 

SAT (concerns) (01/18/2013):

Migration to groundwater: Slow

PBT rating: P2B1T1

Health: 2 Dermal, Inhalation

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 6 ppb)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1D

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 2
p130208.eng

 

 

 

Page 3
p130208.eng

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0208

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 4
p130208.eng

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0208

 

 

 

Page 5
p130208.eng

 

 

Page 6