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



CERTIFICATIONS OF JOSEPH R. ROZELLE, PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER, PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Emerald Acquisition Corporation. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, the undersigned officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.





|                     |                                                            
|-------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 15, 2009 |                                                            
|                     |                                                            
|                     |                                                            
|                     | /s/ Joseph R. Rozelle                                      
|                     | Joseph R. Rozelle                                          
|                     | Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Exhibit 10.46


AMENDMENT 13





This Amendment 13 (“Amendment 13”) effective as of this 1st day of January, 2010 (“Effective Date”) between Double-Take Software, Inc. (formerly known as NSI Software, Inc.), 257 Turnpike Road, Suite 210, Southborough, MA 01772 (“Double-Take”) and Sunbelt Software Distribution, Inc.,  33 North Garden, Suite 1200, Clearwater, FL 33755 (“VAR”) amends the Xcelerate Partner Agreement (“Agreement”), between the parties dated August 2, 2001.





WHEREAS, Double-Take and VAR wish to modify certain provisions pertaining to Aggregate Dollar Commitment;





NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:





1.  The Aggregate Dollar Commitment (Schedule B, Section 4) shall be changed as follows:





The annual Aggregate Dollar Commitment is $9,500,000.00 which shall be distributed over the four contract quarters as indicated below:





Q1- 2010
Q2 - 2010
Q3 - 2010
Q4 - 2010$2,000,000.00
$2,400,000.00
$2,100,000.00
$3,000,000.00





2.  Schedule B, Section 3(d) is deleted in its entirety.





Except as modified under this Amendment 13, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.  In the event of a conflict between the terms and conditions of this Amendment 13 and the Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Amendment 13 shall supersede.





IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment 13 to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.







Double-Take Software, Inc.                                                                   Sunbelt Software Distribution, Inc.









Signature:  /s/ S. Craig Huke                                       Signature:  /s/ Alex Eckelberry




Print Name:  S. Craig Huke                                                                      Print Name:  Alex Eckelberry




Title: Chief Financial Officer                                                                        Title:      Chief Executive Officer




Date:         February 11, 2010                   Date:     February 10, 2010
#### § 2517.600 How are funds for community-based service-learning programs distributed?

All funds are distributed by the Corporation through competitive grants.
§ 1330.25 Additional considerations for field-initiated priorities. ( a ) The Director reserves funds to support field-initiated applications funded under this part when those applications have been awarded points totaling 85 percent or more of the maximum possible points under the procedures described in § 1330.23.
( b ) In making a final selection from applications received when NIDILRR uses field-initiated priorities, the Director may consider whether one of the following conditions is met and, if so, use this information to fund an application out of rank order: ( 1 ) The proposed project represents a unique opportunity to advance rehabilitation and other knowledge to improve the lives of individual with disabilities.
( 2 ) The proposed project complements or balances research activity already planned or funded by NIDILRR through its annual priorities or addresses the research in a new and promising way.
( c ) If the Director funds an application out of rank order under paragraph (b) of this section, the public will be notified through a notice on the NIDILRR Web site or through other means deemed appropriate by the Director.
# EUR-Lex - 12004V381 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V381

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART III — THE POLICIES AND FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - TITLE VI — THE FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - CHAPTER I — PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE INSTITUTIONS - Section 1 — The institutions - Subsection 5 — The Court of Justice of the European Union - Article III-381 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0163 - 0163 *

Article III-381

The Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union shall be laid down in a Protocol.

A European law may amend the provisions of the Statute, with the exception of Title I and Article 64. It shall be adopted either at the request of the Court of Justice and after consultation of the Commission, or on a proposal from the Commission and after consultation of the Court of Justice.

--------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 13

- 0958 Filed July 16, 2014

TERRY HARRIS , Applicant

- Appellant,

vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent

- Appellee.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karen A. Romano , Judge.

Terry Harris appeals from the district court’s denial of his application for postconviction relief asserting ineffective assistance on the part of his trial and appellate counsel. AFFIRMED.

Michael J. Piper of Dickey & Campbell Law Firm, PLC , Des Moines , for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tyler J. Buller , Assistant Attorney General, John P. S arcone , County Attorney, and Mark H. Taylor , Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.2

DOYLE, J. Terry Harris was charged with possession of crack cocaine with intent to deliver, failure to poss ess a tax stamp, and possession of marijuana. A jury found Harris guilty as charged. In his direct appeal, Harris claimed his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser was violated when a police officer was allowed to testify about a controlled drug buy without the testimony of the confidential informant. He also claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for not trying to learn the informant’s identity through a pretrial motion to compel disclosure or a motion to suppress. This court affirmed Harris ’s convictions. See State v. Harris , No. 10

- 0643, 2011 WL 2078193, at *5

- 6 (Iowa Ct. App. May 25, 2011). Harris filed a pro se application for postconviction relief (PCR) raising essentially the same issue s he raised on direct appeal

— that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to obtain the identity of the confidential informant , thus denying Harris the right to confront his accuser

. He later filed a pro se supplemental application, asserting his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to fu lly investigate the case and for failing to file a motion to suppress. Through counsel, Harris’s PCR application was later amended to allege his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise claims under the Iowa Constitution. We have carefully reviewed the record and the district court’s PCR ruling.
The district court’s ruling i s thorough and well

- reasoned. Upon our de novo review, see Ennenga v. State , 812 N.W.2d 696, 701 (Iowa 2012), we find the
district court addressed the claims raised by Harris , and we agree with the court’s findings and conclusions. Any further discussion by our court of the issues3

raised would add little to , and not change , the disposition of this case. Accordingly, the district court’s ruling denying Harris’s PCR appl ication i s affirmed without opinion. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.1203(a), (d).
AFFIRMED.
#### § 2516.800 What are the purposes of an evaluation?

Every evaluation effort should serve to improve program quality, examine benefits of service, or fulfill legislative requirements.
****Exhibit 32.1****

 

****IMPLANT SCIENCES CORPORATION****

****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002****

 

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Implant Sciences Corporation. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Anthony Armini, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that tomy knowledge:

 

1.  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 
| ** ** | **/s/    ** Anthony  Armini |   |
|------------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|       | Anthony Armini                                       |
|       | Chief Executive Officer                              |
|       | November 21, 2005                               |

 

----
Industrial Economics, Inc (IEc) Documents Referenced in Preamble or used as Supporting

Documents for RIA 1. Methodology

for Secondary

Containment for Piping (Work Assignment 1 - 19, Task 5) , October 3, 2008 2. Small Entities Screening Analysis of UST Universe by Industry Sector (Work Assignment 3 - 25, Task 4), February

4, 2010 3. Detailed Assessment of UST Universe b y Tank Purpose and Design (W ork A ssignment 1 - 25, Task 6) , March 24, 2009 4. Preliminary

Assessment and Scoping of Data Related to Potential Revisions to the UST Regulations (Work Assignment 1 - 25, Tasks 2 - 4), November 20, 2008 5. Draft Methodology

for Assessing Cost- Effectiveness of Operator Training Options (W ork A ssignment 1 - 19, Task 4 ), December 30, 2008 6. Detailed Assessment of UST Universe b y Tank Use and Industry Sector (W ork A ssignment 1 - 25, Task 6), January

23, 2009
§ 156.945 Evidence. ( a ) The ALJ will determine the admissibility of evidence.
( b ) Except as provided in this part, the ALJ will not be bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence. However, the ALJ may apply the Federal Rules of Evidence where appropriate; for example, to exclude unreliable evidence.
( c ) The ALJ excludes irrelevant or immaterial evidence.
( d ) Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
( e ) Although relevant, evidence is excluded if it is privileged under Federal law.
( f ) Evidence concerning offers of compromise or settlement made in this action will be inadmissible to the extent provided in the Federal Rules of Evidence.
( g ) Evidence of acts other than those at issue in the instant case is admissible in determining the amount of any civil money penalty if those acts are used under § 156.805 of this part to consider the entity's prior record of compliance, or to show motive, opportunity, intent, knowledge, preparation, identity, or lack of mistake. This evidence is admissible regardless of whether the acts occurred during the statute of limitations period applicable to the acts that constitute the basis for liability in the case and regardless of whether HHS' notice sent in accordance with § 156.805 referred to them.
( h ) The ALJ will permit the parties to introduce rebuttal witnesses and evidence.
( i ) All documents and other evidence offered or taken for the record will be open to examination by all parties, unless the ALJ orders otherwise for good cause shown.
( j ) The ALJ may not consider evidence regarding the willingness and ability to enter into and successfully complete a corrective action plan when that evidence pertains to matters occurring after HHS' notice under § 156.805(d) or § 156.810(c) or § 156.810(d).
#### § 2525.260 Who may use the education award to pay expenses incurred in enrolling in a G.I. Bill-approved program?

To use the education award to pay expenses incurred in enrolling in a G.I. Bill-approved program, an Eligible Individual must have received an education award for successfully completing a term in an approved national service position, in which they enrolled on or after October 1, 2009.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 22-5323 September Term, 2022

1:22-cv-02176-RC

Filed On: June 2, 2023 [2001987]

John Anthony Castro, 

 Appellant

v.

Federal Election Commission, 

 Appellee

M A N D A T E

In accordance with the order of April 10, 2023, and pursuant to Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 41, this constitutes the formal mandate of this court.

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy

Deputy Clerk

Link to the order filed April 10, 2023

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #2001987 Filed: 06/02/2023 Page 1 of 1
#### § 2551.51 What are the terms of service of a Senior Companion?

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70542, Aug. 30, 2024.

A Senior Companion shall serve a minimum of 260 hours annually, or a minimum of 5 hours per week. A Senior Companion may serve a maximum of 2080 hours annually, or a maximum of 40 hours per week. Within these limitations, a sponsor may set service policies consistent with local needs.

[83 FR 64646, Dec. 17, 2018]
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 109 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 109

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of Management 
  and Budget relating to ``Enhancing Transparency Through Use of the 
                Investing in America Emblem on Signs''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 10, 2024

  Mr. Cruz introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
     twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
                          Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of Management 
  and Budget relating to ``Enhancing Transparency Through Use of the 
                Investing in America Emblem on Signs''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Office of Management and Budget relating to 
``Enhancing Transparency Through Use of the Investing in America Emblem 
on Signs'' (CA-23-6, published on February 24, 2023, as a Controller 
Alert, and a letter of opinion from the Government Accountability 
Office dated August 29, 2024, printed in the Congressional record on 
September 9, 2024, on pages S5872-S5875, concluding that such 
Controller Alert is a rule under chapter 8 of title 5, United States 
Code), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
§ 2105.55 How long do you have to file an appeal? ( a ) Appeals covered by § 2105.54(a)(1) through (5) must be received by the FOIA Appeals Officer no later than 90 days from the date of the final response.
( b ) Appeals covered by § 2105.54(a)(6) must be received by the FOIA Appeals Officer no later than 90 days from the date of the letter denying the fee waiver.
( c ) Appeals covered by § 2105.54(a)(7) may be filed any time after the time limit for responding to the request has passed.
( d ) Appeals covered by § 2105.54(a)(8) should be filed as soon as possible.
( e ) Appeals arriving or delivered after 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, will be deemed received on the next workday.
#### Dohovan *et al.,*appellants, v. Woodruff.

*Contract of sale—conflicting evidence.*

Plaintiffs sought to recover for a quantity of stone alleged to have been sold to the defendant and delivered at his request to K. On the trial the evidence was contradictory as to whether or not the sale was made to defendant on his sole credit; but the circuit judge refused to allow the case to go to the jury and nonsuited the plaintiff. On appeal, *held,*that the case should have been submitted to the jury.

Appeal from a judgment at the circuit dismissing the complaint. *John E. Van Etten,*for appellants.

*Paddock & Nott*and *M. Schoonmaker,*for respondent.

Bockes, J.

The opinion contains no point of general importance not stated in the head-note.

*Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.*
#### Elizabeth Schoenhut, Respondent, *v.*Albert Schoenhut, Appellant.

*Sohoenhut*v. *Sohoenhut,*123 App. Div. 913, appeal dismissed.

(Argued April 1, 1909;

decided April 27, 1909.)

Appeal from, an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered January 8, 1908, which affirmed an order of Special Term overruling a preliminary objection to a motion to compel payment of referee’s fees.

*James Harmon*and *Joseph P. Schattner*for appellant.

*Guy B. Moore*for respondent.

Appeal dismissed, without costs ; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ.
#### § 1237.14 What are the additional scheduling requirements for audiovisual, cartographic, and related records?

The disposition instructions should also provide that permanent records be transferred to the National Archives of the United States within 5-10 years after creation (see also 36 CFR part 1235). See § 1235.42 of this subchapter for specifications and standards for transfer to the National Archives of the United States of audiovisual, cartographic, and related records.
#### Nicholson *v.*Pittsburg Railways Company, Appellant

(No. 2).

July 15, 1914:

Opinion by

Head, J.,

By a written stipulation filed in the court below it was agreed that this plaintiff, who was injured while riding in an automobile driven by her husband, was not to be charged with contributory negligence, and that if the judgment of this court in the case just disposed of, Thomas Nicholson v. Pittsburg Railways Company, ante, p. 106, should be adverse to the plaintiff *111therein, on the ground only of his contributory negligence, the judgment in favor of this plaintiff should be affirmed. The stipulation still reserved to the company defendant the right to a judgment in its favor if this court would reach the conclusion the evidence disclosed no act of negligence by the defendant.

Whilst it must be conceded the evidence is scant on this subject, we are not prepared to. say the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was without support. In determining whether or not the street car was traveling at an undue rate of speed, some reliance must of necessity be placed on opinion evidence. In the same way, in ascertaining whether or not notice of its approach was given by gong, bell or whistle, negative evidence must be received. In the present case we have testimony of this character on both questions, and whatever might be our own view as to the weight of the evidence, we cannot say the case should have been withdrawn from the jury on the ground there was nothing to support a verdict for the plaintiff. Under the terms of the stipulation referred to we dismiss the assignment of error in this case and affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Causal ModelsCriteriaEvaluation MethodsEvaluation ProblemsEvaluation UtilizationEvaluatorsInferencesPerformance FactorsProgram EvaluationQualitative ResearchStandardsTheory Practice RelationshipUser Needs (Information)

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 7 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 7

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
  United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the 
 Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense and the Environmental 
 Protection Agency relating to ``Revised Definition of `Waters of the 
                           United States'''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 2, 2023

 Mrs. Capito (for herself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Thune, Mr. Barrasso, Ms. 
Ernst, Mr. Daines, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Braun, Mrs. Britt, 
Mr. Budd, Mr. Cassidy, Ms. Collins, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cramer, 
   Mr. Crapo, Mr. Cruz, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
  Hagerty, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Johnson, Mr. 
 Kennedy, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Lee, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Moran, 
   Mr. Mullin, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Paul, Mr. Ricketts, Mr. Risch, Mr. 
 Romney, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Schmitt, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. 
Scott of South Carolina, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Tuberville, Mr. 
   Vance, Mr. Wicker, and Mr. Young) introduced the following joint 
   resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
  United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the 
 Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense and the Environmental 
 Protection Agency relating to ``Revised Definition of `Waters of the 
                           United States'''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, 
Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency relating 
to ``Revised Definition of `Waters of the United States''' (88 Fed. 
Reg. 3004 (January 18, 2023)), and such rule shall have no force or 
effect.
                                 <all>
```