alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 10 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 Form 10-QSB of Environmental
Solutions Worldwide, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period June 30, 2005
(the "Report"), David J. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer, President and Acting
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U. S. C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(1). To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



DATE: AUGUST 12, 2005


/S/ DAVID J. JOHNSON
--------------------
DAVID J. JOHNSON
PRESIDENT, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND PRESIDENT



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 Environmental Solutions Worldwide,
Inc. and will be retained by Environmental Solutions Worldwide, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
234P05-3

#### State v. Gregory Allen Gant

Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Motion for PDR (COAP16-157)

Denied 03/31/2016
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.68 Action on application for license to cover construction permit. ( a ) An application for license by the lawful holder of a construction permit will be granted without hearing where the Commission, upon examination of such application, finds that all the terms, conditions, and obligations set forth in the application and permit have been fully met, and that no cause or circumstance arising or first coming to the knowledge of the Commission since the granting of the permit would, in the judgment of the Commission, make the operation of such station against the public interest.
( b ) In the event the Commission is unable to make the findings in paragraph (a) of this section, the Commission will designate the application for hearing upon specified issues.
(Sec. 319, 48 Stat. 1089, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 319)
<PAGE>

                                    Exhibit No. 11



<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit No. 11

                         Analysts International Corporation

                        Computation of Net Income per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            THREE MONTHS ENDED     SIX MONTHS ENDED
(IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT                          DECEMBER 31             DECEMBER 31
PER SHARE AMOUNTS)                          ------------------     ----------------
                                              1996      1995       1996      1995
                                             -------   -------    -------   -------
<S>                                          <C>       <C>        <C>       <C>
Primary:

Weighted average number of common
shares outstanding                            14,676    14,548     14,664    14,538

Dilutive stock options after application
of treasury stock method                         364       236        304       234
                                             -------   -------    -------   -------
Weighted average number of common and
common equivalent shares outstanding          15,040    14,784     14,968    14,772
                                             -------   -------    -------   -------
                                             -------   -------    -------   -------

Net income                                   $ 3,905   $ 2,882    $ 7,773   $ 5,691
                                             -------   -------    -------   -------
                                             -------   -------    -------   -------

Per share amount                             $   .26   $   .19    $   .52   $   .38
                                             -------   -------    -------   -------
                                             -------   -------    -------   -------

Fully diluted:

Weighted average number of common   
shares outstanding                            14,676    14,548     14,664    14,538

Dilutive stock options based on the treasury
stock method using the end of the period market
price, if higher than average market price       393       236        358       252
                                             -------   -------    -------   -------

Weighted average number of common and
common equivalent shares outstanding          15,069    14,548     15,022    14,790
                                             -------   -------    -------   -------
                                             -------   -------    -------   -------

Net income                                   $ 3.905   $ 2,882    $ 7,773   $ 5,691
                                             -------   -------    -------   -------
                                             -------   -------    -------   -------

Per share amount                             $   .26   $   .19    $   .52   $   .38
                                             -------   -------    -------   -------
                                             -------   -------    -------   -------
</TABLE>
No. 11-73.

#### Siler *v.*United States.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certio-rari denied.
No. 11-9304.

#### Brinker *v.*Michigan Department of Human Services.

Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2021-2349: Infernal Technology, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"wtuWAdO0cT\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-04-2022-2021-2349-infernal-technology-llc-v-activision-blizzard-inc-audio-uploaded\/\">2021-2349: Infernal Technology, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-04-2022-2021-2349-infernal-technology-llc-v-activision-blizzard-inc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=wtuWAdO0cT\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2021-2349: Infernal Technology, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"wtuWAdO0cT\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: Infernal Technology, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2021-2349 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
No. 11-5392.

#### Ortega-Urquidi, aka Urquidi-Ortega *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Imazapic Focus Meeting Summary for May 20, 2014

The OPP registration review team (from BEAD, EFED, HED, RD and PRD) held a focus meeting with the

technical registrants (BASF and MANA/ADAMA), as well as representatives from the Bureau of Land

Management (BLM), and the USDA’s Forestry Service (FS) and Office of Pesticide Pest Management

Policy (OPMP). At this meeting the registration review team and stakeholders discussed the registration

review process, shared information on use and benefits, and tried to identify any potential issues that

could impact the registration review of imazapic. BLM and the Forestry Service identified previous

assessments and consultations that could be useful to the endangered species assessment along with

data on usage for federally managed lands, the registrants provided valuable information on the specific

uses and benefits of imazapic products, and OPMP shared information on resources that may be helpful

during the registration review process.

Attendees:

Name Organization Contact

Ricardo Jones OPP/PRD Jones.ricardo@epa.gov

Jeff Birk BASF Jeffrey.birk@basf.com

Teung Chin USDA/OPMP Teung.chin@ars.usda.gov

Bo Davis EPA/RD Davis.kable@epa.gov

Michael Wagman OPP/EFED Wagman.michael@epa.gov

Monica Wait OPP/EFED Wait.monica@epa.gov

Anwar Dunbar OPP/HED Dunbar.anwar@epa.gov

Lata Venkateshwara OPP/HED Venkateshwara.lata@ea.gov

Bill Wassell OPP/HED Wassell.william@epa.gov

Elizabeth Hill OPP/BEAD Hill.elizabeth@epa.gov

Monisha Kaul OPP/BEAD Kaul.monisha@epa.gov

Sunil Ratnayake OPP/BEAD Ratnayake.sunil@epa.gov

Cynthia Doucoure OPP/BEAD Doucoure.cynthia@epa.gov

Steve Covell USDA/FS scovell@fs.fed.us

Jonathan Janis ADAMA/MANA Jonathan.janis@us.adama.com

Richard Lee BLM Richard_lee@blm.gov

Neil Anderson OPP/PRD Anderson.neil@epa.gov

Tom Moriarty OPP/PRD Moriarty.thomas@epa.gov
§ 20.11 Interconnection to facilities of local exchange carriers. ( a ) A local exchange carrier must provide the type of interconnection reasonably requested by a mobile service licensee or carrier, within a reasonable time after the request, unless such interconnection is not technically feasible or economically reasonable. Complaints against carriers under section 208 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 208, alleging a violation of this section shall follow the requirements of §§ 1.711-1.734 of this chapter, 47 CFR 1.711-1.734.
( b ) Local exchange carriers and commercial mobile radio service providers shall exchange Non-Access Telecommunications Traffic, as defined in § 51.701 of this chapter, under a bill-and-keep arrangement, as defined in § 51.713 of this chapter, unless they mutually agree otherwise.
( c ) Local exchange carriers and commercial mobile radio service providers shall also comply with applicable provisions of part 51 of this chapter.
( d ) Local exchange carriers may not impose compensation obligations for traffic not subject to access charges upon commercial mobile radio service providers pursuant to tariffs.
( e ) An incumbent local exchange carrier may request interconnection from a commercial mobile radio service provider and invoke the negotiation and arbitration procedures contained in section 252 of the Act. A commercial mobile radio service provider receiving a request for interconnection must negotiate in good faith and must, if requested, submit to arbitration by the state commission.
[59 FR 18495, Apr. 19, 1994, as amended at 61 FR 45619, Aug. 29, 1996; 70 FR 16145, Mar. 30, 2005; 76 FR 73852, Nov. 29, 2011; 77 FR 1640, Jan. 11, 2012]
#### IN THE MATTER OF LENNIE W. JONES.

(Supreme Court Disciplinary Nos. 622, 623)

(377 SE2d 156)

Per curiam.

This opinion combines two disciplinary complaints against Lennie W. Jones. In proceeding number 622, Ms. Jones was charged with the violation of Standards 4, 44 and 45 of Rule 4-102 of the Rules and Regulations of the State Bar of Georgia. These charges grew out of Ms. Jones alleged misrepresentation of facts and her wilful abandonment or disregard of a case entrusted to her. She failed to respond to discovery requests and to the motion to compel and the motion for sanctions filed by the State Bar resulting in the facts alleged being considered as true.

The Special Master found additional aggravating factors in the multiple violations of Bar rules and that Ms. Jones had been issued a public reprimand previously. Reciting consideration of all these factors, the Review Panel of the State Disciplinary Board recommended disbarment.

In disciplinary proceeding number 623, the State Bar alleges Ms. Jones made false statements in violation of Standard 4 of Bar Rule 4-102 and violated Standard 60 by engaging in ex parte communications with the court. In this proceeding, the Bar also filed discovery motions which were not responded to by Ms. Jones.

In proceeding 623, the Review Panel of the State Disciplinary *192Board recommended that in the event the recommendation of disbarment in proceeding number 622 be approved by the Supreme Court, that the original record in proceeding number 623 be returned to the State Disciplinary Board to be transferred to the inactive docket to be reactivated and considered in the event Ms. Jones ever petitions for reinstatement to the practice of law.

Decided March 15, 1989

Reconsideration denied May 3, 1989.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Bridget B. Bagley, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

Upon review of the record, we find Lennie Jones to have violated Standards 4, 44 and 45 of Bar Rule 4-102 of the Rules and Regulations of the State Bar of Georgia in connection with her activities relating to disciplinary proceeding number 622 and we take into account the aggravating circumstances shown and order that she be disbarred.

As to disciplinary proceeding number 623, the recommendation of the State Disciplinary Board is approved and the original record is ordered returned to the State Disciplinary Board to be placed in the inactive file as requested.

*Disbarred.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Exhibit 10.11.1

 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE

JANUS CAPITAL GROUP INC.

AMENDED AND RESTATED INCOME DEFERRAL PROGRAM

 

THIS AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) to the Amended and Restated Income Deferral Program (as amended through July 19, 2010, the “Plan”) is made as of December 12, 2016.

 

WHEREAS, the Administrative Committee (as undersigned below) has been delegated by the Plan Administrator to carry out certain of the Plan Administrator’s responsibilities under the Plan; and

 

WHEREAS, the Administrative Committee has determined, subject to ratification by the Plan Administrator, to amend the Plan as set forth below.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

 

1.                                     Section 2.02 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

 

“Base Compensation: An Eligible Employee’s annual rate of base salary as of the first day of the Plan Year, to the extent paid in U.S. dollars from an Employer’s U.S. payroll, determined before reduction for compensation deferred pursuant to the Plan or any other plan of deferred compensation maintained by an Employer, including, without limitation, any such plan maintained in accordance with Code section 401(k), 125, or 132(f), as determined by the Plan Administrator.”

 

2.                                     The first sentence of Section 4.01(a) of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

 

“Each Eligible Employee may make an election to defer under the Plan any whole percentage of his or her Base Compensation (up to 70%), Periodic Incentive Compensation (up to 100%), Bonus Compensation (up to 100%), and Equity Compensation (up to 100%) in the manner described in Section 4.02.”

 

3.                                     The first sentence of Section 4.02(a) of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

 

“Subject to the next two sentences, an Eligible Employee must make a deferral election for a Plan Year with respect to Base Compensation by December 31st of the year prior to the beginning of the Plan Year in which the Base Compensation would otherwise be paid.”

 

4.                                     This Amendment shall be governed by, interpreted under and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware.

 

5.                                     Except as modified by this Amendment, the Plan is hereby confirmed in all respects.

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed and delivered as of the date and the year first written above.

 

 

	
 
    	
ADMINISTRATIVE   COMMITTEE OF THE AMENDED AND RESTATED INCOME DEFERRAL PROGRAM
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Karlene J. Lacy
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Karlene J. Lacy
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Administrative Committee Member
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Sue   Armstrong
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Sue   Armstrong
    
	
 
    	
 Title:
    	
Administrative   Committee Member
    


 

2
# Comments on: 2020-1271: KEYnetik, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
§ 301-71.210 How do we calculate late payment fees? Late payment fees are calculated either by: ( a ) Using the prevailing Prompt Payment Act Interest Rate beginning on the 31st day after submission of a proper travel claim and ending on the date on which payment is made; or
( b ) A flat fee, of not less than the prompt payment amount, based on an agencywide average of travel claim payments; and
( c ) In addition to the fee required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, you must also pay an amount equivalent to any late payment charge that the card contractor would have been able to charge had the employee not paid the bill. Payment of this additional fee will be based upon the effective date that a late payment charge would be allowed under the agreement between the employee and the card contractor.
[FTR Amdt. 92, 65 FR 21366, Apr. 21, 2000]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             473
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,439
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,950
<INVENTORY>                                      5,682
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,444
<PP&E>                                           7,664
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,567
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,736
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,124
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,381
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,736
<SALES>                                         47,393
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,079
<CGS>                                           37,069
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,069
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,101
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    79
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 834
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,928)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        13
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,941)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,941)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.86)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39982-39983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16391]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Veterans' Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards; Notice of 
Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public 
Law 92-463 that a meeting of the Veterans' Advisory Committee on 
Environmental Hazards will be held on Thursday and Friday, July 27-28, 
2000, VA Central Office, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Room 430, Washington, 
DC 20420. The meeting will convene at 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at 5:00 
p.m. on both days.
    The purpose of the meeting is to review information relating to the 
health effects of exposure to ionizing radiation. The major items on 
the agenda for both days will be discussions and analyses of medical 
and scientific papers concerning the health effects of exposure to 
ionizing radiation. On the basis of their analyses and discussions, the 
Committee may make recommendations to the Secretary concerning diseases 
that are the result of exposure to ionizing radiation. The agenda for 
the second day will include planning future Committee activities and 
assignment of tasks among the members.
    The meeting is open to the public on both days. Those who wish to 
attend should contact Ms. Ersie Farber-Collins of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs, Compensation and Pension Service, 810 Vermont Avenue, 
NW, Washington, DC 20420, prior to July 27, 2000. Ms. Farber-Collins 
may also be reached at 202-273-7268.
    Members of the public may submit written questions or prepared 
statements for review by the Committee in advance of the meeting. 
Submitted material must be received at least five

[[Page 39983]]

(5) days prior to the meeting and should be sent to Ms. Farber-Collins' 
attention at the address given above. Those who submit material may be 
asked to clarify it prior to its consideration by the Committee.

    Dated: June 20, 2000.

    By direction of the Secretary.
Marvin R. Eason,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-16391 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
#### § 15.701 Scope.

This subpart sets forth the regulations for unlicensed white space devices. These devices are unlicensed intentional radiators that operate on available TV channels in the broadcast television frequency bands, the 600 MHz band (including the guard bands and duplex gap), and in 608-614 MHz (channel 37).