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



Multiband 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 this Annual Report Form
10-K/A, Multiband Corporation (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, James L. Mandel, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge:



1.      This
Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m or 78o(d)); and

2.      The
information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



|Dated:  October 19, 2012 | /s/ James L. Mandel    
|------------------------ | -----------------------
|                         | James L. Mandel        
|                         | Chief Executive Officer
#### John B. De Villers, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, on the opinion of Macomber, J., at Special Term.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Societal and Ethical Issues in Research.                    

*Date:*                         October 6, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Maria De Jesus Diaz Perez, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1000G, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-4227,                         *diazperezm2@csr.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 6, 2023.

David W. Freeman,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-19506 Filed 9-8-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
EXHIBIT 10q-14

AMENDMENT TO THE BELLSOUTH PERSONAL  RETIREMENT ACCOUNT PENSION PLAN

WHEREAS, BellSouth Corporation (the "Company") sponsors the BellSouth Personal Retirement Account Pension Plan (the "Plan"), which was amended and restated
effective January 1, 1998, and subsequently amended from time to time; and

WHEREAS,
pursuant to Section 15.01 of the Plan, the Employees' Benefit Committee (the "Committee") is authorized to adopt nonmaterial amendments to the Plan; and

WHEREAS,
L.M. Berry and Company adopted the Plan subject to certain modifications described in Schedule 2 of the Plan; and

WHEREAS,
the Committee approved a provision through unanimous written consent to amend the Plan to provide the interest crediting rate of 5.12% for the L.M. Berry and Company
participants for the 2002 Plan Year; and

WHEREAS,
the Committee approved another provision through unanimous written consent to amend the Plan for L.M. Berry and Company participants to make them eligible for the "415 excess
annuity" (see Plan Section 6.05), except for participants who continue in the Berry Excess Plan; and

WHEREAS,
the Committee agreed to provide no additional credits for the 2002 Plan Year; and

WHEREAS,
the Committee approved a provision to apply the increased compensation limits under Internal Revenue Code 401(a)(17) for Plan Year 2002 and all later years; and

WHEREAS,
the Secretary of the Treasury prescribed a new mortality table to be used for calculating annuity and lump sum conversion factors in defined benefit pension plans, and the
Committee through unanimous written consent recommended adoption of the new table; and

WHEREAS,
the Committee authorized appropriate officers of the Company to do such further acts and to execute such documents as may be necessary or advisable to effectuate the purposes of
such approval;

NOW,
THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority delegated by the Committee, the undersigned officer approves the following amendments to the Plan:

1.

Effective
as of January 1, 2002, Schedule 2 of the Plan regarding L.M. Berry and Company is hereby amended by adding at the end of Paragraph 4(f) the following:



2.

Effective
as of January 1, 2003, Schedule 2 of the Plan regarding L.M. Berry and Company is hereby amended by replacing Paragraph 4(o) with the following:



3.

Effective
as of January 1, 2002, amend Section 1.12 of the Plan by adding the following sentences as the third paragraph:



---



4.

Effective
as of December 31, 2002, amend Section 1.04 by adding the following sentence:



| | By:   | /s/ Richard D. SibbernsenRichard D. Sibbernsen
Vice PresidentHuman Resources
| | ----- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Date: | December 17, 2002                                                            

---

QuickLinks
#### Pauline Dieter, as Administratrix of the Estate of John Dieter, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*Gabriel J. Elias et al., Respondents.

*Dieter*v. Mias, 147 App. Div. 918, affirmed.

(Argued April 3, 1912;

decided April 30, 1912.)

Appeal from a judgment entered November 28,1911, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, overruling plaintiff’s exceptions, ordered to be heard in thé first instance by the Appellate Division, denying a motion for a new trial and directing judgment for defendants upon the nonsuit granted by the trial court in an action to recover for the death of plaintiff’s intestate alleged to have been occasioned through the negligence of defendants, his employers.

*Wallace Thayer*and *Fred S. Jackson*for appellant.

*Franklin D. L. Stowe*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ.
From: nicole@robinsontransport.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:18:43 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Nicole Berry

London, OH 43140
----

|   | (1) | The      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended      September 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of      Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.      78m(a) or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| November 9, 2009 |   | /s/Phillip E. Becker                       |   |
|------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date             |   | Phillip      E. Becker                     |   |
|             |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|             |   |                                       |   |
| November 9, 2009 |   | /s/H. Stewart Fitz Gibbon    III           |   |
| Date             |   | H.      Stewart Fitz Gibbon III            |   |
|             |   | Executive      Vice President and          |   |
|             |   | Chief      Financial Officer               |   |

----
file:///C|/..._List_29-08-2011_12-55-54-352/Document%20List%2029-08-2011%2012-55-54-352_docs/EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0047.html[8/29/2011 2:06:36 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: August 29, 2011

Received: August 24, 2011

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 80eeae4f

Comments Due: September 30, 2011

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0018

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of

Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0018-0002

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services under

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0047

Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Virginia 

Address:

San Diego, CA,

General Comment

The so-called "religious exemption" is too narrow. There are many religious institutions that make a

point of serving *everyone*, not just members of their own faith. These include schools, colleges,

hospitals, nursing homes, orphanages, charities, etc. .... 

As religious groups, they may find it against their beliefs to pay for artificial contraception and/or

abortifacient "morning after" pills for their employees. But they do not qualify for the religious

exemption as currently written. .... 

I urge HHS to adopt a broad and strong exemption that truly covers *all* employers with religious

and conscientious objections to providing birth control and abortion drugs. It should specifically

exempt all religious organizations under section 501 (c) of the IRS Code. .... 

Thank you.
**UNPUBLISHED**
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 4139** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DAVID BRUCE JENKINS, a/k/a l quid_dragon , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District C ourt for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville
. Lacy H. Thornburg , District Judge. ( 1:08

- cr - 00017

- LHT

- 1 )

Submitted : February 26, 2010 Decided: March 1 6 , 2010

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part ; a ffirmed in part by un published per curiam opinion
. Lee Ann Anderson McCall, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Edward R. Ryan, Acting United States Attorney, Adam Morris, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpub lished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: David Bruce Jenkins pled guilty to coercion and enticement regarding his attempts to have sexual contact with a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) ( 2006 ). In his guilty plea, Jenkins waived his right to appeal except for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, or the reasonableness of any upward variance from the Sentencing Guidelines range. (JA 10). Jenkins was sentenced to 262 months of impri sonment. On appeal, Jenkins raises the following issues: (1) whether the Government breached his plea agreement by advocating for an eight

- level sentence enhancement , under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2G1.3(b)(5) (2008) ; (2) whether trial counsel was ineffective for fail ing to object
to the eight

- level enhancement ; and (3) whether the eight

- level enhancement was er roneous because the victim was not actually under the age of twelve, as the person involved was actually a police officer prete nding to be an eleven

- year - old girl. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss in part and affirm in part. First, we find no breach of the plea agreement. United States v. McQueen , 108 F.3d 64, 65

- 66 (4th Cir. 1997) (providing plain error review standard ). Thus, as argued by the Government, Jenkins has waived his right to challenge his eight

level sentencing enhancement . We therefore dismiss the appeal of Jenkins’ third issue. We find Jenkins ’ remaining issue

—3 ineffective assistance of counsel

— not co gnizable in this appeal. United States v. James , 337 F.3d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 2003) (providing standard)
. Rather, this claim should be brought, if at all, in a subsequent 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. United States v. Gastiaburo , 16 F.3d 58 2, 590 (4th Cir. 1994) . Accordingly, we deny relief on Jenkins’ second issue and affirm his sentence. 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 IN PART ; AFFIRMED IN PART
Exhibit 10.37


 


TENANCY AGREEMENT
FOR WAREHOUSE


 


(Contract No.:Tianjin 2015-09) )


 


Lessor (Party A): China Tiesiju
Civil Engineering Group Co.Ltd (Material Company)


Lessee (Party B): Lakeland (Beijing)
Safety Products Ltd. 


According to provisions of the “Contract
Law of People’s Republic of China”, and upon the basis of voluntaries, equality and mutual benefits, Party A and Party
B have reached a consensus to enter into this Agreement in respect of the lease of Warehouse.


1.   Party A shall lease
to Party B the warehouse located in Intersection of Beichen Dao and Tiedong Road, Beichen District, Tianjin, P.R.China.
(Hereinafter referred to as the “Warehouse”), with a construction area of Six Hundred (600) square meters
(actual calculation for leasing). The building is for commercial use and the warehouse is concrete structure.


2.   Party B undertakes,
as represented to Party A, which the lease of said Warehouse shall only be for the purpose of storage of goods. Party B
shall abide by relevant state and municipality regulations.


3.   Both parties agree
that Party A shall turn over the Warehouse to Party B before June 10, 2015. Lease: The lease term of said Warehouse shall
commence on June 20, 2015 and expire on June 19, 2016.


4.   Party A shall have
the right to recover all leased Warehouse upon the expiry of the lease term, and Party B shall return the Warehouse on time. If
Party B wishes to renew the lease, a written intent must be made to Party A six months prior to the expiration of the lease term;
subject to Party A’s consent, a renewal contract shall be executed.


5.   Both Parties agree
that the total monthly rent shall be RMB 10,000. The rent of said Warehouse shall remain unchanged for One (1) year
of the lease term.


6.   The Method of payment
for the rent of said Warehouse is as follows: Party B shall pay the rental to Party A’s designated bank account semiannually
and deposit for one month during the term of the lease.


Beneficiary: China Tiesiju Civil Engineering
Group Co.Ltd (Material Company) 


A/C No.: 0302 0402 0930 0028 578


Beneficiary bank: Xinkailu Branch, Tianjin,
ICBC


7.   Party A and Party B
agree that upon signing this Agreement, Part A should invoice fully to Part B according to the rent within ten (10) working
days after Part B paying the rent.


8.   The expenses in respect
of water, electricity, and network fees shall be borne by Party A.


9.   There shall be two
(2) original copies of this Agreement. Party A and Party B shall each hold one copy. All copies are of equal legal effect.


 


	Lessor (Party A):	Lessee (Party B):
	 	 
	Shanghai Huchen Lighting Company	Lakeland (Beijing) Safety Products Ltd.
	 	 
	Proxy:	Proxy:
	 	 
	Date:	Date:
### NEW MEXICO Area Designations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

The table below identifies the areas and associated counties or parts of coun ties in New Mexico that EPA intends to designate as nonattainment for th e 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (2008 NAAQS). In accordance with section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act, EPA must designate an area

“nonattainment” if it is violati ng the 2008 ozone NAAQS or if it is co ntributing to a violation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in a nearby area. The techni cal analyses supporting the boundaries for the

individual nonattainment areas are provided below.

Intended Nonattainment Areas in New Mexico

Area New Mexico’s Recommended

Nonattainment Counties EPA’s Intended

Nonattainment Counties

None None None

Governor Richardson submitted ozone designation recommendation letters for Albuquerque and the remaining counties in New Mexico to Acting Regiona l Administrator Starfield on February 5, 2009, and March 11, 2009, respectively. A recommendation of “ nonattainment” for a porti on of Dona Ana County was made, based on a design value of 0.076 ppm at the Desert View mon itoring site (one of six in the county), from observations fo r the period from 2006 – 2008.

In a follow-up ozone designation recommendation le tter from Secretary Martin to Regional Administrator Armendariz, dated October 17, 2 011, New Mexico revised its ozone designation

recommendation to “attainment” for all counties. Th is revised recommendation was based on data for the period from 2008 – 2010, which indicates no viol ations of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in Dona Ana County or elsewhere in the state.

EPA also received 2008 ozone design ation recommendation letters from Governor Roybal of the Pueblo

de San Ildefonso and Governor Dasheno of the Sa nta Clara Pueblo in March 2009. Governor Roybal recommended a designation of “attainment” for Pu eblo de San Ildefonso, and Governor Dasheno recommended a designation of “uncla ssifiable” for Santa Clara Pueblo.

EPA intends to designate all counties and tribal territories in New Mexico as “unclassifiable/attainment” for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. There are no ambient air qua lity monitors within th e state of New Mexico with design values that indicate a violation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS , based on data for the period from 2008 - 2010, and there are no nonattainment areas or intended nonattainment areas that border the

state of New Mexico. The nearest nonattainment areas are Phoenix in Arizona and Denver in Colorado.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-91858, 333-55642, 333-39736, 333-77803,
333-69141) and Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-84428, 333-74522, 333-63306, 333-82239) of
Identix Incorporated of our report dated August 6, 2002 relating to the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule, which
appears in this Form 10-K.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
San Jose, California
September 26, 2002
From: Jrpinkston@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:15:10 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Melissa Pinkston

Memphis, TN 38134