alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Integrated Environmental Technologies, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William E. Prince, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

|   | (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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|   | /s/ Williams Prince                            |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | William E. Prince |
|--------|-------------------|

|   | Chief Executive Officer and |
|--------|-----------------------------|

|   | Principal Financial Officer |
|--------|-----------------------------|

|   | May 21, 2007 |
|--------|--------------|
<PAGE>

                                                      EXHIBIT 10(x)





                                                      September 15, 2000




Mr. Rodney Faver


Dear Rodney:

      We are writing to amend, effective October 1, 2000, the agreement between
you and Garan, Incorporated ("Garan") originally entered into on October 1,
1988, and subsequently amended and restated (the agreement, as amended and
restated and now again amended, "Employment Agreement"), with respect to your
continuing employment by Garan. We have agreed that:

            A.    Section 1.3, Period of Employment, shall be amended to read
as follows:

                  "Your employment under this Employment Agreement shall be for
a term ending September 30, 2003 ("Term End")."

            B. Section 3.2, Termination by Garan Other Than for Cause, shall be
amended (i) by changing the date in the first paragraph from "October 1, 2000"
to "October 1, 2003", and (ii) by changing the date in Paragraph 3.2.b from
"September 30, 2000" to September 30, 2003."



<PAGE>



            C.    In all other respects, the Employment Agreement shall be
unchanged.

      If the foregoing correctly sets forth our agreement, please sign and
return the enclosed copy of this letter.


                                          Sincerely,

                                          GARAN, INCORPORATED


                                          By: /s/ Seymour Lichtenstein
                                             ------------------------------
                                             Seymour Lichtenstein, Chairman



AGREED AND ACCEPTED:


/s/ Rodney Faver
----------------------------
    Rodney Faver
§ 219.53 Who may file an objection. ( a ) Individuals and entities who have submitted substantive formal comments related to a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision during the opportunities for public comment as provided in subpart A during the planning process for that decision may file an objection. Objections must be based on previously submitted substantive formal comments attributed to the objector unless the objection concerns an issue that arose after the opportunities for formal comment. The burden is on the objector to demonstrate compliance with requirements for objection. Objections that do not meet the requirements of this paragraph may not be accepted; however, objections not accepted must be documented in the planning record.
( b ) Formal comments received from an authorized representative(s) of an entity are considered those of the entity only. Individual members of that entity do not meet objection eligibility requirements solely based on membership in an entity. A member or an individual must submit substantive formal comments independently to be eligible to file an objection in an individual capacity.
( c ) When an objection lists multiple individuals or entities, each individual or entity must meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. Individuals or entities listed on an objection that do not meet eligibility requirements may not be considered objectors, although an objection must be accepted (if not otherwise set aside for review under § 219.55) if at least one listed individual or entity meets the eligibility requirements.
( d ) Federal agencies may not file objections.
( e ) Federal employees who otherwise meet the requirements of this subpart for filing objections in a non-official capacity must comply with Federal conflict of interest statutes at 18 U.S.C. 202-209 and with employee ethics requirements at 5 CFR part 2635. Specifically, employees may not be on official duty nor use government property or equipment in the preparation or filing of an objection. Further, employees may not include information unavailable to the public, such as Federal agency documents that are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)).
#### Henry H. Jackson et al., as Executors of and Trustees under the Will of Peter A. H. Jackson, Appellants, *v.*Mary E. Rowe, Respondent.

(Argued May 20, 1907;

decided May 28, 1907.)

Reported below, 106 App. Div. 65, 614.

'Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 29, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of the court on *642trial at Special Term. Also motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of said Appellate Division, entered June 29, 1905, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for a new trial.

The first motion was made upon the ground that no questions of law were raised which could be reviewed by the Court of Appeals, the exceptions being frivolous and the Appellate Division having unanimously decided that the findings of the trial court were supported by the evidence. The second on the grounds that the order sought to be reviewed was not an intermediate order and the granting or refusing thereof was discretionary.

*F. B. Woodruff*for motion.

*John L. Wells*opposed.

Motion to dismiss appeal from judgment denied, with ten dollars costs. Appeal from order dismissed and record deemed amended by striking out all papers and proceedings with reference thereto.
#### § 272.6 Power to revoke.

It is the intention of these regulations that the Chief, in exercising the authorities delegated hereunder, will at all times consider the primary purpose of carrying on a public service campaign to promote wise use of the environment and programs which foster maintenance and improvement of environmental quality. All authorities and licenses granted under these regulations shall be subject to abrogation by the Chief at any time he finds that the use involved is injurious to the purpose of the *Woodsy Owl* campaign, is offensive to decency or good taste, or for similar reasons, in addition to any other limitations and terms contained in the licenses and other authorities.

[40 FR 12641, Mar. 20, 1975]
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

DECEMBER 4, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-12532

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 01-00089-CR-ORL-28GJK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RONALD RAY JORDAN,

a.k.a. Apple Head Ron,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(December 4, 2009)

Before BLACK, PRYOR and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Stephen J. Langs, appointed counsel for Ronald Ray Jordan, has filed a

motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent

review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of

the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals

no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the

revocation of Jordan’s supervised release and sentence are AFFIRMED.

2
§ 1212.650 Grant. *Grant* means an award of financial assistance that, consistent with 31 U.S.C. 6304, is used to enter into a relationship— ( a ) The principal purpose of which is to transfer a thing of value to the recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States, rather than to acquire property or services for the Federal Government's direct benefit or use; and
( b ) In which substantial involvement is not expected between the Federal agency and the recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated by the award.
the public. Granting my, Nick Patillo, requestfor exemption will reduce current risk levels and thereby enhance safety. My UAS craft do not contain potentiallyexplosive fuel, is smaller, lighterand more maneuverable than conventional real estate video and photographic aircraftwith much less flighttime. Further, Ioperate at loweraltitudes and in controlled airspace eliminating potential public risk flying to and from established airfields. I, Nick Patillo, have been informally analyzing flight information and will compile safety protocols and the implementation ofaflight operations manual for real estate usage that exceeds currently accepted means and methods for safe flight. Formal collection of information shared with the FAAwill enhance the FAA's internal efforts to establish protocols for complying with the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of2012. There

are no personnel on board my, Nick Patillo, UAS and therefore the likelihood ofdeath or serious bodily injury is significantly diminished. My, Nick Patillo's, operation ofmy UAS, weighing less than 5 pounds and travelling at lower speeds within limited areas will provide an equivalent level of safety as that achieved undercurrent FARs. Accordingly I, Nick Patillo, respectfully request thatthe FAAgrant my exemption request and am willing to cooperate in sharing information to benefitthe FAA, safety of manned aircraft, and the general public at large.
• RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 65{PRIVATE}

Mining Waste Exclusion

54 FR 36592-36642

September 1,1989

(Non-HSWA Cluster VI)

This present checklist istitled "Mining Waste Exclusion I" indicating that itisthe first of two amendments tothis exclusion. The

second amendment occurred at55 FR 2322 on January 23, 1990 and isaddressed by Revision Checklist 71 - Mining Waste

Exclusion II. This latter checklist will be made available through SPA 9.

STATE ANALOG IS;

FEDERAL REQUIREMENT I FEDERAL RCBA CITAnON I

ANALOGOUS

STAIECITAnON

EQUIV· MORE

IALENT I

BROADER

STRINGENT I INSCOP

PART 261 • IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF

HAZARDOUS WASTES

SUBPART A- GENERAL

•

•

add exception for

mixture ofa

261.4(b)(7) waste and

a solid waste

exhibiting aSubpart C

characteristic unless

resultant mixture

meets certain characteristic conditions;

mixture ishazardous

relative tothe EP

toxicity characteristic

add "of this part" after

"Subpart D"; add

language excepting

mixtures of hazardous

waste and solid waste

excluded under

261.4(b)(7) and the

mixture no longer

exhibits hazardous

characteristics for

which the hazardous

waste was listed in

Subpart D

define beneficiation;

replace the last three

words ofthe paragraph, "does not

include", with

'includes only'

261.3(a)(2)(i)

261.3(a)(2)(iii)

261.4(b)(7)

No Analog

No Analog

No Analog

September 1,1989 - Page 1of2

x

x

x
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 65: Mining Waste

Exclusion I (cont'd) c

STATE A

990).

FEDERAL REQUIREMENT

solid wastes, from

ore and mineral

processing, that are retained within exclusion

solid wastes from ore

and mineral processing that are conditionally retained within

the exclusion

FEDERAL RCRA CITATION

261.4(b)(7)(j)(AHE)

261.4(b)(7)(ii)(A)-m

ANALOGOUS

STATE CITATION

No Analog

No Analog

EQUIV·

IALENT I

MORE BROADER

STRINGENT I INSCOP

x

x

o

See subsequent technical correction tothe definition of"beneficiation" as addressed by Revision Checklist 71 (55 FR 2322, January 23,

o

September 1,1989 - Page 2of2
§ 1232.14 What requirements must an agency meet before it transfers records to a records storage facility? An agency must meet the following requirements before it transfers records to a records storage facility: ( a ) Ensure that the requirements of 36 CFR part 1234 are met. Special attention must be paid to ensuring appropriate storage conditions for records on non-paper based media (e.g., film, audio tape, magnetic tape), especially those that are scheduled for long-term or permanent retention, as those records typically require more stringent environmental controls (see 36 CFR parts 1236 and 1237).
( b ) To transfer unscheduled records, notify NARA in writing prior to the transfer, by mail at National Archives and Records Administration; Office of the Chief Records Officer (AC); 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740-6001, or by email at *RM.Communications@nara.gov .* The notification must identify the records storage facility and include a copy of the information required by § 1232.16(a).
( c ) For all records being transferred, create documentation sufficient to identify and locate files. (See § 1232.16.)
( d ) Ensure that NARA-approved retention periods are implemented properly and that records documenting final disposition actions (destruction or transfer to the National Archives of the United States) are created and maintained.
[74 FR 51014, Oct. 2, 2009, as amended at 83 FR 13654, Mar. 30, 2018]
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 10.13(b)


                 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT DATED MAY 14,1996
                                    BY AND BETWEEN
                              RURAL CELLULAR CORPORATION
                                         AND
                                  WESLEY E. SCHULTZ

     THIS AMENDMENT entered into this 18th day of December, 1996, by and
between Rural Cellular Corporation ("RCC" or "Company") and Wesley E. Schultz
(the "Employee").

     WHEREAS, RCC and the Employee entered into a written Employment
Agreement on May 14, 1996 (the "Employment Agreement");

     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14 of the Employment Agreement, RCC and the
Employee desire to amend the Employee's Employment Agreement to extend the
term of the

Agreement and to increase certain payments to Employee in the event of a
change in control of RCC;

     NOW, THEREFORE, it is AGREED as follows:

     1.   The Employee's term of employment, as set forth in Section 5 of the
Employment Agreement, is hereby extended to December 31, 1999.

     2.   The amount to be paid to the Employee in the event of the involuntary
termination of his employment, absent Just Cause, in connection with, or within
twelve (12) months after, any change in control of RCC, as stated in Section 1 l
(a) of the Employment Agreement, shall be equal to the product of 2.99 times the
Employee's "base amount" as defined in Section 28OG(b)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") and the regulations promulgated
thereunder.

     3.   Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to such terms in the Employment Agreement.

     4.   All other terms, conditions and provisions of the Employment Agreement
remain in full force and effect.

                                        RURAL CELLULAR  CORPORATION

                                        /s/   Richard P. Ekstrand
                                        -------------------------

                                        BY: Richard P. Ekstrand
                                        President/Chief Executive Officer

                                        /s/ Wesley E. Schultz
                                        ---------------------
                                        Wesley E. Schultz
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

James M. McMaster and :

Mary Ellen McMaster, h/w, :

Appellants :

:

v. : No. 628 C.D. 2016

:

The Township of Bensalem :

O R D E R

NOW, April 25, 2017, having considered appellant’s application for 

reargument and appellee’s answer in response thereto, the application is denied.

 

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT,

 President Judge
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of ) 

 ) MUR 7807 

Snap, Inc. ) 

) 

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF 

COMMISSIONER SEAN J. COOKSEY

For substantially the same reasons articulated in my Statement of Reasons in MURs 7821, 

7827, and 7868 (Twitter, Inc.), I voted to find no reason to believe Snap violated campaign-finance 

law in this matter, but did not support the Commission’s Factual & Legal Analysis.

1 I believe Snap

is a media entity, and therefore its decisions about the content and operation of its platform—

regardless of political motivation—fall within the Commission’s media exemption. I would 

resolve the matter on that basis alone.

______________________________ September 14, 2021 

Sean J. Cooksey Date

Commissioner

1

 Statement of Reasons of Commissioner Sean J. Cooksey (Sept. 13, 2021), MURs 7821, 7827 & 7868 

(Twitter, Inc., et al.).

MUR780700078
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) OF THE
                        SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Yankee Candle Company, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended April 2, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Craig W. Rydin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (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.

/s/ CRAIG W. RYDIN
------------------------
Craig W. Rydin
Chief Executive Officer
May 9, 2005
#### § 51.34 What will the Director do if a selected preferred offeror does not timely execute the new concession contract?

If a selected preferred offeror fails to execute the concession contract in the time period specified by the Director, the Director either will select for award of the concession contract the offeror that submitted the best responsive proposal, or will cancel the solicitation and may resolicit the concession contract but only without recognition of a preferred offeror or right of preference.
§ 6.10 Financial assurance. ( a ) The Regional Director will not require a bond or security deposit for a solid waste disposal site for which the operator has established a bond under 40 CFR 258.74(b).
( b ) The Regional Director will not require a bond or security deposit for a solid waste disposal site whose owner or operator is a State entity whose debts and liabilities are the debts and liabilities of a State.
( c ) Upon approval of a request to operate a new, or continue an existing, solid waste disposal site, an operator who is not described in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section must file with the Regional Director a suitable performance bond with satisfactory surety, payable to the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary's designee. The bond must be conditioned upon faithful compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, and the permit requirements as approved. When bonds are to serve as security, an operator must provide a power of attorney to the Secretary or the Secretary's designee. The bond must be issued by a surety company listed and approved by the Department of the Treasury.
( d ) In lieu of a performance bond, an operator may deposit with the Secretary or the Secretary's designee cash or negotiable bonds of the United States Government. The cash deposit or the market value of such securities must be at least equal to the required sum of the bond(s).
( e ) The bond or security deposit will be established by the Regional Director in an amount equal to the estimated cost to accomplish all closure and post-closure care requirements as described in 40 CFR part 258, subpart F, but in no case less than $25,000.
( f ) The responsibility and liability of the operator (and the surety, if any) under the bond or security deposit must continue until the Regional Director determines that closure and post- closure care have been completed in accordance with the permit requirements. No portion of the performance bond or security deposit may be released until such a determination has been made.
( g ) Within 30 calendar days after the Regional Director determines that all closure and post-closure care requirements have been successfully completed according to the permit, the Regional Director will notify the operator (and the surety, if any) that liability under the bond or security deposit has been terminated and the bond or security deposit released.
#### § 34.11 Boating operations.

The launching or operation of a motor boat is prohibited.
#### § 14.51 Extent of grant.

By decision of the Secretary, Nevada Department of Highways, A.24151, September 1945, it was held that the law imports discretion and indicates no intent to vest in the State a right at the end of the four months' period without further action by the Department having jurisdiction. It was held further that the interest transferred under the statute is merely a right-of-way or right to take materials and that the Government may reserve the right to dispose of leasable minerals.
Filed 7/18/13 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2013 ND 114

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Kyle Jordan Varnson, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20130041

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable Debbie Gordon Kleven, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Faye A. Jasmer, Assistant State’s Attorney, 124 South Fourth Street, P.O. Box 5607, Grand Forks, N.D. 58206-5607, for plaintiff and appellee; on brief.

David C. Thompson (on brief), 321 Kittson Avenue, P.O. Box 5235, Grand Forks, N.D. 58206-5235, for defendant and appellant; on brief.

State v. Varnson

No. 20130041

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Kyle Varnson appeals a district court judgment after conditionally pleading guilty to driving under the influence.  Varnson argues law enforcement did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop his vehicle.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (3).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner