alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.01

 

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 Quarterly Report of The Players Network (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (“Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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) 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Dated: November			15, 2005 | /s/ Mark Bradley                              |
|----------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       | Mark Bradley                                                                                                                                                                                   |  
 

Chief Executive Officer

 
 

Principal Accounting Officer

  |
From: asmith@besam-usa.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:40:03 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,

Ame Smith

Pageland, SC 29728
# National Archives andRecords Administration Office ofthe Federal Register

MAY 1 1 2007 Ms. Nancy Molitor Regulations Division (AGe-20D) Office ofthe Chief Counsel Federal Aviation Administration, DOT 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 Dear Ms. Molitor: The material listed in the attachment is approved forIncorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 39. This approval is contingent upon the final rule containing any language changes, which were agreed upon by our staffs_The approval to incorporate by reference this publication(s) is effective on the effective date ofyour final rule. Ifyou wish to enforce some other edition ofthe publication(s) approved, you must: 

### J. Publish notice ofthe change in the Federal RCglster, and amend the Code ofFederaJ Regulations; and 2. Ensure that acopy ofthat edition is on file atthe Office ofthe Federal Register; and 3. Notify me in '.'/Titingofthe change. Smcerely, 

# 'JIVIia.-J ;( [vt.-~ {~[OND A MOSLEY Director ofthe Federal Register Federal Register Attorney:OA:= 

### Attachment

u.s. mail address: 8601Adelphi Road. College Park, MD 20740-6001

Office location: 800North Dpitol Street, NW, Suite 700,Washington, DC 20002-4244 Federal Register web sites: http://wv.'VIl.ardUves.gov(federal-registerQnd http:! /www,gpoaccess,gov/naraIncorporation byReference

Docket No. FAA-2005-22288; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-132~AD; Arndt. 39-15050; AD 2007-10-09
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2660 dated November 16. 2006 Docket No. FAA-2006-24696; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-038-AD; Arndt. 39-15052; AD 2007-/0-11

EMBRAER EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-28- 0028 Service Bulletin 145LEG-28-0030 dated November 7,2005 dated April 19, 2006 Docket No. F

AA-2007-27531; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-020-AD: Arndt. 39-15054; AD 2007-10-13
Apex Aircraft

Printed 5/1112007 Mandatofy Service Bulletin No. 040401 dated October 29, 2004

Page 1ofl
ex104.htm


EXHIBIT 10.4


 


MUTUAL TERMINATION


OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Mutual Termination of Employment Agreement is entered into by and between Vidaroo Corp. and Ian McDaniel effective as of January 1, 2013.


 



	
1.  

	
Mr. McDaniel is currently an Executive Officer of Vidaroo based on an employment agreement dated as of May 1, 2008 with subsequent amendments dated November 6, 2008, November 8, 2009 and May 16, 2012.







 



	
2.  

	
The parties hereby wish to, and do hereby, mutually terminate the Agreement.







 



	
3.  

	
Mr. McDaniel will resign his position as an Executive Officer, but continue in his role as a Director of the Board.







 



	
4.  

	
In consideration of the mutual termination Mr. McDaniel agrees to forgo any post employment compensation as stated in the agreement.







 



	
5.  

	
In consideration of the mutual termination, Vidaroo agrees to forgo any rights that previously existed in Section 10 “Restrictive Covenants” of the Employment Agreement and further agrees to indemnify Mr. McDaniel for any and all possible ramifications related to the release of the “Restrictive Covenants”.







 



	
6.  

	
In consideration for his ongoing involvement on the Board of Directors, all Stock Options previously issued shall remain in full force and effect.  In further consideration for his ongoing leadership as a Director, Vidaroo agrees to adjust the Exercise price of those Stock Options to Fair Market Value at the time of the execution of this agreement.  Fair Market Value shall be defined as the average closing price of Vidaroo’s Common Stock for the 30 calendar days prior to the execution of this agreement as further indicated in separately executed Vidaroo Corporation Non-Statutory Stock Option Agreement.







 






	 
Vidaroo Corp.

	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	 	 	 	 	 
	 	
Thomas Moreland, Incoming Chairman  

	 	 	
Ian McDaniel

	 
	 	
And CEO
Amanda Vincent <Amanda.Vincent@LA.GOV>
12/23/2013 10:00 AM To OW-Docket@EPA

cc Sanford Phillips <Sanford.Phillips@LA.GOV>, Scott Guilliams <Scott.Guilliams@LA.GOV>, Alex Prochaska <Alex.Prochaska@LA.GOV> bcc
Subject Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606 WQS Regulatory Clarifications Proposed Rule 1 attachment

EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606_LDEQ_Comments_12-20-2013.pd f

Please find attached comments from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) regarding Docket ID No. EPA

‐ HQ

‐ OW

‐ 2010

‐ 0606.

Sincerely, Amanda Vincent

Office of Environmental Services Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 4313 Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4313
City of 

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 

E.ric P-:>ookmeyer, Mayor 

May 29,2015 

Kevin Schlemmer 

Chief, Essential Air Service & Domestic Analysis Division 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Petition of Mason City, IA for a Waiver from the 

10-Enplanement Status 

Docket DOT-OST-2001-10684 

Dear Mr. Schlemmer: 

10 First Street Northwest 

Mason City, lA 50401-3224 

(641) 421-3600 

www.masoncity. net 

On behalf of the City of Mason City, Iowa, I am submitting this petition for a waiver 

exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41731(a)(1)(B)in terminating our EAS eligibility based upon 

the 10 passenger per day statute. This request is based upon airport enplanement history 

and the fact that Great Lakes Airlines suspended all air service on February 1, 2014. Great 

Lakes entered our market in 2012 and during that time ridership declined drastically due 

to reliability issues, numerous cancellations as well as the pilot shortage that hit the airline 

industry in 2013. I have attached a history of enplanement/deplanements which 

demonstrates our airport's ability to far exceed the 10-enplanement rule in prior years of 

commercial service at our airport. 

Air Choice One commenced service at Mason City on November 17, 2014 and from the 

beginning the community and the entire North Iowa Region has supported the new carrier. 

The airport's enplanement/deplanement numbers have doubled and in some cases tripled 

from the previous carrier. 

We appreciate the opportunity to receive a waiver exemption based upon our history and 

the special circumstances that negatively impacted our airport in 2013 and 2014. 

Sincerely, 

Mayor Eric Bookmeyer 

City of Mason City,Iowa 

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNlTY EMPLOYER
From: won7dthree@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:30:04 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,

Wm. Norman Rogers

Fort Myers, FL 33905
Table of Contents

Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Smith Barney Westport Futures Fund L.P. (the"Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the periodending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, David J. Vogel, President and Director of Citigroup Managed FuturesLLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Partnership.

/s/ David J.Vogel

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

David J.VogelCitigroup Managed Futures LLC President andDirector     Date: May 11,2006

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6392

JEFFREY S. BLANEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

EDWARD MURRAY, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District

Judge. (CA-93-1502-AM)

Submitted: August 27, 1996 Decided: September 10, 1996

Before HAMILTON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey S. Blaney, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by

Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264

(1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229

(1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within which to

file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or

final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the

appeal period are when the district court extends the time to

appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

Appellant's failure to file a timely notice of appeal or to

obtain either an extension or a reopening of the appeal period

leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of

Appellant's appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of probable

cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability

is required, we deny such a certificate and dismiss the 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
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsRadiation Induced Degradation of the White Thermal Control Paints Z-93 and Z-93PThis paper details a comparison analysis of the zinc oxide pigmented white thermal control paints Z-93 and Z-93P. Both paints were simultaneously exposed to combined space environmental effects and analyzed using an in-vacuo reflectance technique. The dose applied to the paints was approximately equivalent to 5 years in a geosynchronous orbit. This comparison analysis showed that Z-93P is an acceptable substitute for Z-93. Irradiated samples of Z-93 and Z-93P were subjected to additional exposures of ultraviolet (UV) radiation and analyzed using the in-vacuo reflectance technique to investigate UV activated reflectance recovery. Both samples showed minimal UV activated reflectance recovery after an additional 190 equivalent sun hour (ESH) exposure. Reflectance response utilizing nitrogen as a repressurizing gas instead of air was also investigated. This investigation found the rates of reflectance recovery when repressurized with nitrogen are slower than when repressurized with air.Document ID19970002925Acquisition SourceMarshall Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsEdwards, D. L.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville,AL United States)*Zwiener, J. M.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville,AL United States)*Wertz, G. E.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville,AL United States)*Vaughn, J. A.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville,AL United States)*Kamenetzky, R. R.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville,AL United States)*Finckenor, M. M.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville,AL United States)*Meshishnek, M. J.*(Aerospace Corp. El Segundo, CA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1996Subject CategoryNonmetallic MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:108518NASA-TM-108518Accession Number97N11712Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970002925.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
No. 303, Misc.

#### McCalip *v.*United States.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General Cox*for the United States.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari denied.
From: cjcarp@homenetnw.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:28:57 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,

Clyde Carpenter

Moses Lake, WA 98837
No. 60973.

protests 11443-K, etc. (New York).

#### Independent Fur Brokers, Inc., and Dumont Shipping Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of kidskin plates the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480) or *Prime Fur Corp.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 83, C. D. 1802) and lambskin plates similar to those the subject of *A. S. Gold & Pro., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 1643) or C. D. 1802, *supra,*the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinions in C. D. 1480 and C. D. 1643, *supra.*
From: lendres@tds.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:52:32 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,

lorraine endres

Waunakee, WI 53597