alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit
        32.1**
  **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 **(18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**
  In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Ecuity, Inc., a Nevada corporation
        (the
“Company”), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed
        with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Andrew Buffmire,
        President of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
        of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my 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 presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
   /s/Andrew
        Buffmire
 Andrew
        Buffmire
 President
 November
        21, 2005
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4596

AN ACT

To designate the building located at 2200 North Highway

67 in Florissant, Missouri, for the period of time during

which it houses operations of the United States Postal

Service, as the ‘‘John L. Lawler, Jr. Post Office’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The building located at 2200 North Highway 67 in

5 Florissant, Missouri, shall, for the period of time during

6 which it houses operations of the United States Postal

7 Service, be known and designated as the ‘‘John L. Lawler,

8 Jr. Post Office’’.
2

•HR 4596 EH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

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

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the building

4 referred to in section 1 shall, with respect to the period

5 referred to in section 1, be deemed to be a reference to

6 the John L. Lawler, Jr. Post Office.

Passed the House of Representatives June 26, 1994.

Attest:

Clerk.

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4596

AN ACT

To designate the building located at 2200 North

L. Lawler, Jr. Post Office’’.the United States Postal Service, as the ‘‘Johnriod of time during which it houses operations ofHighway 67 in Florissant, Missouri, for the pe-
No. 11-9206.

#### Hoyt *v.*Cain, Warden.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Allen KOKOSKI, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-6030.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 11, 2004.

Decided March 19, 2004.

Michael Allen Kokoski, Appellant pro se. Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Michael Allen Kokoski seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and denying relief on his motion to reconsider filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 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 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 that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Kokoski has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Kokoski’s motion to permit access to the court and his motion for bail pending 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*
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 2.901 Basis and purpose. ( a ) In order to carry out its responsibilities under the Communications Act and the various treaties and international regulations, and in order to promote efficient use of the radio spectrum, the Commission has developed technical standards and other requirements for radio frequency equipment and parts or components thereof. The technical standards applicable to individual types of equipment are found in that part of the rules governing the service wherein the equipment is to be operated. In addition to the technical standards provided, the rules governing the service may require that such equipment be authorized under Supplier's Declaration of Conformity or receive a grant of certification from a Telecommunication Certification Body.
( b ) Sections 2.906 through 2.1077 describe the procedure for a Supplier's Declaration of Conformity and the procedures to be followed in obtaining certification and the conditions attendant to such a grant.
[82 FR 50825, Nov. 2, 2017, as amended at 88 FR 7622, Feb. 6, 2023]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7291

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LOXLY JOHNSON, a/k/a Desmond Williams,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00799-CCB-1; 1:15-cv-01995-CCB)

Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 24, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Loxly Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Loxly Johnson seeks to appeal an order reassigning his case to a different district 

court judge. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 

(2018), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2018); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The 

order Johnson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or 

collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             459
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,949
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          2
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          58,633
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            57,707
<LOANS>                                         40,596
<ALLOWANCE>                                        218
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 107,981
<DEPOSITS>                                      87,857
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             10,174
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            65
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,885
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 107,981
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,008
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,640
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,648
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,560
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 215
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,873
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       52
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,211
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    759
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       435
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.73
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.74
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                       149
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   218
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        3
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               218
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
794 A.2d 156

#### IN THE MATTER OF MARTIN C. LATINSKY, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

April 5, 2002.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 00-388, concluding that MARTIN C. LATINSKY of HAWORTH, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1983, should be reprimanded for violating *RPC*1.4(a) (failure to communicate with client), *RPC*1.15(c) (taking fees without client’s authorization) and *RPC*8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that MARTIN C. LATINSKY is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
Ex_1036



		

			Exhibit 10.36

		





		
			AMENDMENT THREE
		

		
			TO THE
		

		
			EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE PLAN OF NEWMONT 
		

		
			WHEREAS, the Executive Severance Plan of Newmont (the “Plan”) was restated by Newmont USA Limited (the “Plan Sponsor”) effective January 1, 2014; and
		

		
			WHEREAS, the Plan Sponsor wishes to amend the Plan in certain respects; and
		

		
			WHEREAS, Section 8.02 of the Plan authorizes the Plan Sponsor to amend the Plan from time to time.
		

		
			NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended effective November 1, 2016 as follows:
		

			
	
			
				 1.
			Section 3.04, Other Benefits, subsection (a), is restated as follows:




		
			Section 3.04.  Other Benefits.
		

		
			(a)Health, Vision, Prescription Drug and Dental Coverage.  An Executive Employee who is eligible to receive severance benefits under this Plan will be entitled to Employer-paid continuation coverage for the Health Plan, Vision Plan, Prescription Drug Plan and Dental Plan (if and as such plans then exist), for a period of weeks equal to the number of weeks of Salary that the Executive Employee receives as a severance benefit as determined under Article III.  However, in no event shall the Employer-paid continuation coverage extend beyond the period of time that the Executive Employee would otherwise be entitled to continue coverage under the provisions of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (“COBRA”).  The COBRA period will run concurrent with medical coverage provided for under this Section.  In the event the number of months of salary paid as a severance benefit is less than the Executive Employee’s COBRA period, if so elected, COBRA coverage shall continue as the Employee’s expense for the remaining COBRA period, as calculated from the date of the Executive Employer’s qualifying event.
		

			
	
			
				 2.
			The Administration Committee or its delegate is hereby authorized to take any action it deems necessary or advisable to implement this Amendment.




		
			The foregoing was adopted this 17th day of October, 2016.
		

		
			NEWMONT USA LIMITED
		

		
			By /s/ Stephen P Gottesfeld
		

		
			Name Stephen P Gottesfeld
		

		
			Title Vice President
		


		 


		

			Executive Severance Plan of Newmont

		


		

			Amendment Three

		


		

			Page 1 of 1

		


		

			2352568
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1777

JEAN P. WARD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS E. WHITE, Secretary of the Army,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (CA-02-86-A)

Submitted: September 23, 2002 Decided: November 7, 2002

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jean P. Ward, Appellant Pro Se. Major Francis Patrick King, Major

Mark David Maxwell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jean P. Ward appeals the district court’s order granting

White’s motion to dismiss Ward’s civil action on res judicata

grounds. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. Ward v. White, No. CA-02-86-A

(E.D. Va. May 31, 2002). 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. 

AFFIRMED
#### § 302-10.6 Are the allowances for transporting a mobile home in addition to the allowances for per diem, mileage, and transportation expenses, for me and my immediate family member(s)?

Yes, allowances for transporting a mobile home (including mileage when towed by you) are in addition to the reimbursement of per diem, mileage, and transportation expenses for you and your immediate family member(s). However, you must consider the fact that the mobile home may be moved at Government expense only if it will be used as your residence at the new official station, and allowances under parts 302-5, 302-6, and 302-11 of this chapter will be paid accordingly.
# NDU to Host Invitation-Only Cyber Beacon Event

/ Published June 20, 2016

**Cyber Beacon III Conference –********“Exploring Cyberspace through Engaging Thought”******National Defense University, Fort McNair, Washington DC Wednesday & Thursday, July 13-14, 2016**

On July 13th and 14th, approximately 100 government leaders, academics, and private sector executives will gather at the National Defense University (NDU) campus at Fort Lesley J. McNair for Cyber Beacon III. This event will provoke the development of creative ideas on how we collectively deliver national security in cyberspace and will inform educational requirements for the cyber workforce. Thought leaders of the cyber domain will confront existing approaches, and each other, using a cross-discipline lens examining critical issues in policy, operations and technology. Bringing together participants from across the U.S. cyber domain, Cyber Beacon has the goal of tapping into the collective wisdom to produce actionable recommendations for NDU’s cyberspace programs, the DoD and government, and the cyberspace community of practice writ large.

Day One sessions will focus on current and emerging challenges and opportunities in cyberspace, from what constitutes cyber war to the basic assumptions about defense in depth. Day Two will focus on innovation and technology, and the impact on how we develop our workforce. Agenda highlights are as follows:

·         **July 13 -**

o   **The New Face of Conflict**: What constitutes actual cyber war?

o   **Balancing Security and Mission Effectiveness**: Does the commander understand the tension between security of data and execution of the mission?

o   **Evening Reception**

·         **July 14 -**

o   **Innovation at Risk:**Can we balance the need to maintain operations while providing an opportunity for creative initiatives and adoption of new technologies?

o   **Workplace of the Future:**If machines are doing the majority of the work, will the role of “the human in the loop” drive a need for greater judgment and critical thinking?  

We are pleased to announce the confirmation of Keynote Speakers:

**Admiral Michael S. Rogers**, 

Commander U.S. Cyber Command, 

Director National Security Agency, 

Chief Central Security Service

**Letitia Long,**

Former Director, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency 

Attendance at this thought provoking event is by invitation only and seating is limited. However, requests for invitations will be entertained.  If you are interested in participating, please contact CyberBeacon@ndu.edu with your name, title, and contact information. Someone will get back to you as quickly as possible. Cyber Beacon III is being coordinated by the Information Resources Management College (IRMC).
Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan – July 2015

Appendix A Page 1

APPENDIX A

SCAQMD Network Depictions
Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan – July 2015

Appendix A Page 2

Figure 1 SCAQMD Ozone Monitoring Locations
Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan – July 2015

Appendix A Page 3

Figure 2 SCAQMD PM10 Monitoring Locations
Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan – July 2015

Appendix A Page 4

Figure 3 SCAQMD Monitoring Locations for Nitrogen Dioxide
Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan – July 2015

Appendix A Page 5

Figure 4 SCAQMD Monitoring Locations for Carbon Monoxide
Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan – July 2015

Appendix A Page 6

Figure 5 SCAQMD Monitoring Locations for Sulfur Dioxide
Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan – July 2015

Appendix A Page 7

Figure 6 SCAQMD Source and Ambient Particulate Lead Monitoring Locations
Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan – July 2015

Appendix A Page 8

Figure 7 SCAQMD PAMS Monitoring Locations
Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan – July 2015

Appendix A Page 9

Figure 8 SCAQMD PM2.5 Monitoring Locations
Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan – July 2015

Appendix A Page 10

Figure 9 SCAQMD 2013 Air Quality Data Summary
No. 11-9094.

#### Vigil *v.*McDonald, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. 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":"20-1961: COREPHOTONICS, LTD. v. APPLE INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"YSrKwuwGUO\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-25-2021-20-1961-corephotonics-ltd-v-apple-inc-opinion-20-1961-opinion-10-25-2021_1854392\/\">20-1961: COREPHOTONICS, LTD. v. APPLE INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-25-2021-20-1961-corephotonics-ltd-v-apple-inc-opinion-20-1961-opinion-10-25-2021_1854392\/embed\/#?secret=YSrKwuwGUO\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“20-1961: COREPHOTONICS, LTD. v. APPLE INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"YSrKwuwGUO\" 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":"OPINION posted: COREPHOTONICS, LTD. v. APPLE INC. [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 20-1961 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
#### § 26.104 Regulatory status.

Licensees are permitted to provide services on a non-common carrier basis. A licensee may render communications services consistent with the regulatory status in its license and with the Commission's rules in this chapter applicable to the Space Launch Services.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         6109389
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  376284
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    15970
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               6510419
<PP&E>                                         534475
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7045829
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          378700
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       21360
<OTHER-SE>                                     6446382
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7045829
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               592581
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               857324
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (264743)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (264743)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   264743
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.01)



</TABLE>