alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
I, Robert C. Salipante, Principal Executive Officer of Keyport Life Insurance Company (the "Company"), hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2003, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "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 that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
*/s/Robert C. Salipante         ____________

Robert C. Salipante

President

November 14, 2003

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 ("Section 906"), and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") or otherwise subject to liability under that section.  This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act except to the extent that this certification is expressly incorporated by reference into any such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 *
No. 62889.

#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States,

protests 175031-K and 175073-K (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of miniature metal figures the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 61156, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(e)


             Schedule of Certain Executive Officers who are Parties
             to the Severance Pay Agreements in the Forms Attached
        as Exhibit 10(b) to the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
                       For the Period Ended June 30, 1997
                       ----------------------------------



Form A of Severance Pay Agreement
---------------------------------

John G. Breen
Christopher M. Connor
Joseph M. Scaminace


Form B of Severance Pay Agreement
---------------------------------

John L. Ault
Michael A. Galasso
Thomas E. Hopkins
Conway G. Ivy
John G. Morikis
Larry J. Pitorak
Thomas W. Seitz
Louis E. Stellato
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAMON PEREZ-CAMACHO,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 06-411M

DETENTION ORDER

Offense charged: 

Illegal Reentry After Deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

Date of Detention Hearing: August 3, 2006.

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth, finds the

following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) The Pretrial Services Report of August 3, 2006 reveals that there is an immigration

detainer lodged against the defendant. 

Case 2:06-mj-00411-JPD Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 1 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

(2) Defendant was born in and is a citizen of Mexico.

(3) There is no information available to show that defendant has any ties to this

community or to the Western District of Washington.

(4) Defendant has a criminal background history revealing prior charges and

convictions.

(5) Defendant is viewed as a risk of nonappearance because of the nature of the instant

charge and as a risk of danger based on his criminal history.

(6) There appear to be no conditions or combination of conditions other than detention

that will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at future Court hearings or the safety of the

community..

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the extent

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant is

confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose of

an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

/ / /

Case 2:06-mj-00411-JPD Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 3

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States

Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 3rd day of August, 2006.

s/ James P. Donohue 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-mj-00411-JPD Document 6 Filed 08/03/06 Page 3 of 3
No. 59344.

protests 192482-K, etc. (New York).

#### Bourjois Mfg. Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of essential oils the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Ungerer & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 152, C. D. 1647), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 58763.

protest 237416-K (New York).

#### Alltransport, Incorporated *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose any evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action, the protest was overruled.
#### TEXASGULF, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-5079.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 1, 2001.

ORDER

The parties having so agreed, it is ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R.App. P. 42(b).
**Exhibit 10.3**

AMENDMENT NO. 1 

TO 

ADVISORY AGREEMENT 

This amendment no. 1 to the Advisory Agreement dated as of November 8, 2006 (the“Advisory Agreement”) between KBS Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), and KBS Capital Advisors LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Advisor”), is entered as ofJanuary 11, 2007 (the “Amendment”). Capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall have the meaning set forth in the Advisory Agreement. 

WHEREAS, upon the terms set forth in this Amendment, the Advisor has agreed to amend and restate Article 16 of the Advisory Agreement and advance funds to the Company upon the terms set forth below. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto agree that Article 16of the Advisory Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 

ADVANCE 

Notwithstanding anything contained in Article 9 of this Agreement to the contrary, the Advisor hereby agrees to advance funds (the “Advance”)to the Company equal to the amount by which the cumulative amount of distributions declared by the Company from January 1, 2006 through the period ending March 31, 2007 exceeds the amount of the Company’s funds from operations (asdefined by NAREIT) from January 1, 2006 through March 31, 2007. Advisor further agrees that the Company will only be obligated to reimburse the Advisor for the Advance if and to the extent that the Company’s cumulative funds fromoperations for the period commencing January 1, 2006 through the date of any such reimbursement exceed the lesser of (i) the cumulative amount of any distributions declared and payable to the Company’s Stockholders as of the date ofsuch reimbursement or (ii) an amount that is equal to a 7.0% cumulative, non-compounded, annual return on Invested Capital for the Company’s Stockholders for the period from July 18, 2006 through the date of such reimbursement.Advisor understands and agrees that no interest shall accrue on the Advance being made under this Agreement. 

*Signature page follows.*

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date and year first abovewritten. 

 
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.By: 
/s/ Charles J. Schreiber, Jr.
 Charles J. Schreiber, Jr., Chief Executive OfficerKBS CAPITAL ADVISORS LLCBy: Schreiber Real Estate Investments, L.P., a Manager By: Schreiber Investments, LLC, as general partner  By: 
/s/ Charles J. Schreiber, Jr.
   Charles J. Schreiber, Jr., Manager
;-.^:sTl€MT01-

K 

March 16,2011 

:nil 'i^Fl ^2 P b: Ub 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 

West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

Petition for Exemption 

1. Name and mailing address -

Mansfield Heliflight, Inc. 

159 Catamount Drive 

Milton, VT 05468 

Phone: 802-893-1003 

Fax:802-893-0151 

Contact: Eric Chase - President Email: echasel784@aol.com 

2. Specific Exemption - Title 14 CFR Part 120 Subpart D 

3. Extent of Relief - We seek relief from having to maintain two separate dnig 

testing programs required for both part 135 Air Carrier and 91.147 operations. 

Mansfield Heliflight, Inc. employees that are required to test for 135 Air 

Carrier operations are the same employees that are required to be tested for 

91.147 operations. Therefore, Mansfield Heliflight, Inc. is proposing to 

maintain one drug testing program rather than two. 

4. Benefits to the Public - We would only have to use enough government 

resources to maintain and surveil one drug testing program and Mansfield 

Heliflight, Inc. employees would be able to devote less non-tax revenue 

producing time participating in and maintaining two drug testing programs. 

5. Reasons why exemption would not adversely affect safety - Mansfield 

HeUflight, Inc. employees would meet the requirements of 14 CFR part 120 

subpart D for 91.147 by being tested for part 135. 

6. Summary - Mansfield Heliflight, Inc. is seeking rehef from having to 

maintain two separate drug testing programs required by 91.147 and part 135 

by petitioning for an exemption that would allow Mansfield Heliflight, Inc. to 

maintain only one drug testing program, since the same employees are tested 

for both the 91.147 and part 135. 
7. Additional information, views or arguments to support request -

Mansfield Heliflight, Inc. maintains about ten employees at any given time 

and it would be redundant to have an employee take separate tests for both the 

part 135 air carrier and 91.147 operations, when one test would suffice. One 

drug testing program would cut down on costs and the loss of productivity 

when sending the employees to the drug testing facility. 

a. Mansfield Heliflight, Inc. does not intent to exercise the privileges of 

this exemption outside of the United States. 

Respect flillyi 

President 

Mansfield Heliflight, Inc.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 278 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res. 278
                                        Agreed to April 12, 2000        

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
             the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR NATIONAL PEACE 
              OFFICERS' MEMORIAL SERVICE.

    The National Fraternal Order of Police and its auxiliary shall be 
permitted to sponsor a public event, the 19th annual National Peace 
Officers' Memorial Service, on the Capitol Grounds on May 15, 2000, or 
on such other date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate may jointly 
designate, in order to honor the more than 130 law enforcement officers 
who died in the line of duty during 1999.

SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

    (a) In General.--The event authorized by section 1 shall be free of 
admission charge to the public and arranged not to interfere with the 
needs of Congress, under conditions to be prescribed by the Architect 
of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board.
    (b) Expenses and Liabilities.--The National Fraternal Order of 
Police and its auxiliary shall assume full responsibility for all 
expenses and liabilities incident to all activities associated with the 
event.

SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS.

    Subject to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, the 
National Fraternal Order of Police and its auxiliary are authorized to 
erect upon the Capitol Grounds such stage, sound amplification devices, 
and other related structures and equipment, as may be required for the 
event authorized by section 1.

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

    The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 
restrictions contained in section 4 of the Act of July 31, 1946 (40 
U.S.C. 193d; 60 Stat. 718), concerning sales, advertisements, displays, 
and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions 
applicable to the Capitol Grounds, with respect to the event authorized 
by section 1.
  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
Case 3:06-cv-05265-FDB Document 10 Filed 06/29/06 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-05265-FDB Document 10 Filed 06/29/06 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-05265-FDB Document 10 Filed 06/29/06 Page 3 of 3
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2023

- 0 570

_____________________________ C LEVELAND M C N AIR , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Joshua M. Hawkes, Judge

. July 23, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. O STERHAUS , C.J.
, and R OWE and L ONG , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Richard M. Bracey, III, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Miranda Lee Butson, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24-D

                            SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the undersigned constitutes and
appoints JOSEPH HINES and CLARENCE J. BAUDHUIN, and each of them, his true and
lawful attorney-in-fact and agent with full power of substitution and
resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign a Form S-3 Registration Statement for filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission respecting the registration of shares of
Common Stock, $.001 par value, of Zila, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together
with any and all amendments (including post-effective amendments) to such
Registration Statement, and to file the same with all exhibits thereto, and all
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
granting such attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary
to be done in and about the premises, as fully and to all intents and purposes
as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that such
attorneys-in-fact and agents, or each of them, may lawfully do or cause to be
done by virtue hereof.

DATED: July 7 , 1997
      --------


                                        /s/ Michael S. Lesser
                                        ------------------------------
                                        MICHAEL S. LESSER

STATE OF ARIZONA           }
                           }   ss.
County of Maricopa         }

     On this 7 day of July , 1997, before me, the undersigned Notary Public,
personally appeared Michael S. Lesser, known to me to be the person whose name
is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that he executed the
same for the purposes therein contained.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.

                                        /s/ Janice Backus
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Notary Public

     My commission expires: October 23, 1997
No. 58286.

protests 167060-K, etc. (New York).

#### The Keepnews Co. and Intra Mar Transport Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of figures or figurines similar in all material respects to those the.subject of *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) As to the items entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption prior to May 28, 1950, at 20 percent under paragraph 1547 (a); and (2) as to the items entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption subsequent to May 28, *3281950, at 10 percent under said paragraph 1547 (a), as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52476).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7042

ROY FRANKLIN ECHOLS, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:13-cv-00378-REP)

Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 19, 2013

Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roy Franklin Echols, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore 

Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Roy Franklin Echols, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); 

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Echols has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 
3

also deny Echols’ motions to alter or amend the judgment and for 

appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 110

Expressing the sense of Congress that the July 20, 1999, 30th Anniversary

of the first lunar landing should be a day of celebration and reflection

on the Apollo-11 mission to the Moon and the accomplishments of the

Apollo program throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 20, 1999

Mr. CRAMER submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Government Reform

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the July 20, 1999,

30th Anniversary of the first lunar landing should be

a day of celebration and reflection on the Apollo-11

mission to the Moon and the accomplishments of the

Apollo program throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s.

Whereas the Apollo-11 mission successfully landed a manned

spacecraft on the Moon on July 20, 1969, marking the

first time in history that humans have walked on the surface of the Moon or any other planet;

Whereas the 6 Apollo missions successfully departed Earth

aboard a Saturn V Rocket, the largest and most powerful

American rocket ever produced, en route to the Moon;
2

•HCON 110 IH

Whereas 12 Americans successfully landed on the surface of

the Moon where they performed various experiments and

collected samples for study, and planted the flag of the

United States of America in the lunar soil achieving a

milestone in American and human history;

Whereas the contributions of other Americans who made up

the thousands of contractors and Government employees

who worked on the Apollo program is recognized; and

Whereas the events of the Apollo missions are examples of

the great achievements of the American space program

reflecting the explorer’s spirit of the American people:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the 30th

3 Anniversary of the first lunar landing should be a day of

4 celebration and reflection on the Apollo-11 mission to the

5 Moon and the accomplishments of the Apollo program

6 throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s.

Æ