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


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


     In connection with the Annual Report of Belltower  Entertainment Corp. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-K for the year  ending  April 30,  2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Donald
K. Bell, President of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that, to
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.


Date: August 12, 2009



                                        By: /s/ DONALD K. BELL
                                            ____________________________________
                                                Donald K. Bell
                                                Director and President
                                                (Principal Executive) and
                                                Financial and Accounting Officer
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 216 (Thursday, November 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 77374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24722]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 9, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 1, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
87 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2024-31, CP2024-31.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-24722 Filed 11-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Before the First Division,

January 18, 1950

No. 53924.

#### International Commercial, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 143044-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as the substance passed upon in *G.D. Searle & Co.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 112, C. D. 1138). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was therefore sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JEFFREY KLEIN, et al., : CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiffs :

:

v. : NO. 04-955

:

NATIONAL PASSENGER :

RAILROAD CORPORATION, a/k/a :

AMTRAK, et al., :

Defendants :

O R D E R

STENGEL, J.

AND NOW, this 2nd day of October, 2006, upon consideration of plaintiffs’

motion for reconsideration of my Order of July 13, 2006 granting summary judgment in favor of

Norfolk Southern (Document #67), and defendants’ response thereto (Document #73), it is

hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the July 13, 2006 Order is REVERSED, Norfolk

Southern’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and the plaintiffs’ claims against Norfolk

Southern shall proceed to the jury. 

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Lawrence F. Stengel 

LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, J.
No. 57596.

#### I. Reifsnyder, Son & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 191186-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the net weight of the wool noils in question, as imported, was 5,356 pounds, rather than as returned by the United States weigher, the collector was directed to refund all duties taken in excess.
Case 2:03-cv-05236-PBT Document 72 Filed 06/19/07 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:03-cv-05236-PBT Document 72 Filed 06/19/07 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:03-cv-05236-PBT Document 72 Filed 06/19/07 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:03-cv-05236-PBT Document 72 Filed 06/19/07 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:03-cv-05236-PBT Document 72 Filed 06/19/07 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:03-cv-05236-PBT Document 72 Filed 06/19/07 Page 6 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Robert S. Waldman

02-4091

District Court Docket Number

vs.

Trooper T. Bradford, et al

Notice of Appeal Filed 1/30/03

Court Reporter(s)/ESR Operator(s) esr

Filing Fee:

 Notice of Appeal x Paid Not Paid Seaman

 Docket Fee X Paid Not Paid USA/VI

CJA Appointment (Attach Copy of Order)

 Private Attorney

 Defender Association or Federal Public Defender

 Motion Pending

Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis status, if applicable: (Attach copy of the Order)

 Motion Granted

 Motion Denied

 Motion pending before district judge

Certificate of probable cause (state habeas corpus): (Attach copy of the Order)

 Granted

 Denied

 Pending

 Defendant's Address (for criminal appeals)

 

 Prepared by : 

Patricia Horning 1/30/03

Deputy Clerk Signature/Date

PLEASE APPEND TO THE NOTICE OF APPEAL AND FORWARD TO

THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

notapp.frm

Case 2:02-cv-04091-MK Document 18 Filed 01/30/2003 Page 1 of 1
Document

Exhibit 10.19
SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE
CNO DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN


THIS SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE CNO DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN (Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2017) (the “Plan”) is made by CNO Services, LLC (the “Company”), pursuant to action of the Company’s Manager (the “Manager”), effective January 1, 2020 (the “Effective Date”).


WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Plan; and


WHEREAS, Section 12.2 of the Plan authorizes the Company to amend the Plan; and


WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend to the Plan to disallow deferrals of “performance shares” and “restricted stock units” (collectively “Equity Awards”);


NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the power reserved to the Company under Section 12.2 of the Plan and delegated to the undersigned officer of the Company, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of January 1, 2020, in the following particulars:


1.By removing all references to “Performance Shares” in the following Sections and subsections of the Plan: 1.3, 1.10, 2.2(b), 3.2(a) 3.3(b), 3.3(c), 3.4 and 3.10(a).


2.By removing all references to “Restricted Stock Units” in the following Sections and subsections of the Plan: 1.3, 1.10, 2.2(b), 3.2(a), 3.3(b), 3.3(d), 3.4 and 3.10(a).


3.By adding the following sentence to the end of Section 1.30:


“Notwithstanding the foregoing, effective January 1, 2020, Participants may no longer make new deferrals of Performance Shares.”


4.By adding the following sentence to the end of Section 1.33:


“Notwithstanding the foregoing, effective January 1, 2020, Participants may no longer make new deferrals of Restricted Stock Units.”


5.By replacing the chart in subsection 3.1(a) with the following:


						
	Deferral	Minimum Amount
	Base Salary, Bonus and/or LTIP Amounts	$3,000 aggregate




       6.   By replacing the chart in subsection 3.2(a) with the following:


						
	Deferral	Maximum Percentage
	Base Salary	75%
	LTIP Amounts	75%
	Bonus	100%




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to be executed on its behalf by the undersigned officer this 








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to be executed on its behalf by the undersigned officer this 5th day of November, 2019, but effective as of January 1, 2020.


						
	CNO SERVICES, LLC
		
		
	By:	/s/ Yvonne K. Franzese
		Yvonne K. Franzese
		
	Title:	Chief Human Resources Officer








[Signature Page for Second Amendment]
EXHIBIT D

Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 1 of 26
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 2 of 26
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 3 of 26
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 4 of 26
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 5 of 26
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 6 of 26
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 7 of 26
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 8 of 26
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 9 of 26
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 10 of 26
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 11 of 26
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 12 of 26
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 13 of 26
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 14 of 26
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 15 of 26
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 16 of 26
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 17 of 26
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 18 of 26
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 19 of 26
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 20 of 26
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 21 of 26
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 22 of 26
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 23 of 26
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 24 of 26
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 25 of 26
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 406-6 Filed 12/04/06 Page 26 of 26
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 24, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-1189 Lower Tribunal No. 18-15508 CC

________________ 

### City of Miami , Appellant, vs. 

### United Automobile Insurance Company ,

Appellee. An appeal from a non-final order from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Myriam Lehr, Judge. Victoria Méndez, City Attorney, and Eric J. Eves, Assistant City Attorney, for appellant. Law Offices of Gary Kornfield, P.A., and Gary Kornfield (Hollywood), for appellee. Before SCALES, HENDON, and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See § 627.7405(1), Fla. Stat. (2021); Lee Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 276 So. 3d 352, 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).
No. 62452.

#### Noritake Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 329927-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re Asbestos Products :

Liability Litigation (No. VI) : MDL 875

:

See Attached List of Cases :

____________________________________X

O R D E R

This Court has previously administratively dismissed each of the cases listed on the attachment

to this order pending the determination of certain issues by the Bankruptcy Court. Those issues

having now been resolved, these cases are hereby reinstated for the purposes set forth herein.

Each of these cases was originally filed in the state court and subsequently either removed or

transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistric Litigation to the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The removal in each case was predicated upon the theory of

“related to” bankruptcy jurisdiction, vis-a-vis the bankruptcy filing in the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware by Federal Mogul Corporation or the bankruptcy filing by Armstrong

World Industries. A large number of similar cases were directly transferred or removed to the

Bankruptcy Court in Delaware the Third Circuit designated the Honorable Alfred M. Wolin as the

presiding judge. Having completed an extensive briefing and hearing process, Judge Wolin, on

February 8, 2002, issued his ruling that the Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction in these matters and

thereupon ordered their transfer back to the various state courts. The order was appealed to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and on July 31, 2002, Judge Slovitor issued the

Court’s opinion upholding Judge Wolin’s decision. The Supreme Court denied cert and all avenues

for appeal appear to have been exhausted by the parties.

Case 2:02-cv-02738 Document 4 Filed 10/09/2002 Page 1 of 2
The actions before this Court are all cases similarly situated with regard to their removal from

the state court. The Court can find no reason not to comply with Judge Wolin’s decision as it relates

to the removal of these cases to the federal court.

IT IS ORDERED that each of these cases is hereby reinstated and remanded to the State of

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court from whence it was removed to this Court.

DONE this 3rd day of October, 2002.

BY THE COURT

___________________________

Charles R. Weiner S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-02738 Document 4 Filed 10/09/2002 Page 2 of 2
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 46405/46406

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

CARL EDWARD IVINS ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: May 16, 2019

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Scott Wayman , District Judge.

Judgment s of conviction and concurrent unified sentence s of nine years with two years determinate for burglary, affirmed ; order s denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion s for reduction of sentence s , affirmed

. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

In each of these cases, consolidated on appeal, Carl Edward Ivins pled guilty to burglary

, Idaho Code § 18

- 1401

. In exchange for his guilty plea s , additional charges were dismissed. The
district court imposed a concurrent unified sentence of nine years with two years determinate in
each case, to run c oncurrently

. Ivins filed Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion s for reduction of his

sentences , which the district court denied. Ivins appeals. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be consid ered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established.2 See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State
v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohil l , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a sentence,

we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387,
391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.
Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Ivins ’ Rule 35 motion s . A

motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 35 is essentially a plea for leniency , addressed to the

sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 23, 24 (2006);

State v. Allbee , 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In presenting a Rule 35
motion, the defendant must show that the senten ce is excessive in light of new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the motion. State v.
Huffman , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the record, including any new information submi tted with Ivins ’ Rule 35 motion s , we conclude no abuse of discretion

has been shown.
Therefore, Ivins ’ judgment s of conviction and sentence s , and the district court’s order s denying Ivins ’ Rule 35 motion s , are affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 15, 2012 

s0612 

Order 

 

June 15, 2012 

143894 

In re BUDD, BUDD-DONAHUE, SC: 143894 

DONAHUE, Minors. COA: 301995 

 Wayne CC Family Division: 

08-483774 

____________________________________/ 

 By order of November 10, 2011, the application for leave to appeal the September 

29, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

In re Morris, Minor (Docket No. 142759). On order of the Court, the case having been 

decided on May 4, 2012, 491 Mich ___ (2012), the application is again considered and, 

pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE that part 

of the judgment of the Court of Appeals applying the conditional-affirmance remedy, 

CONDITIONALLY REVERSE the Wayne Circuit Court, Family Division’s termination 

of the respondent’s parental rights, and REMAND this case to the circuit court for 

resolution of the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 USC 

1901 et seq. On remand, the circuit court shall first ensure that notice is properly made to 

the appropriate entities. If the circuit court conclusively determines that ICWA does not 

apply to the child protective proceeding—because the children are not Indian children or 

because the properly noticed tribe does not timely respond—the circuit court’s order 

terminating the respondent’s parental rights shall be reinstated. If, however, the circuit 

court concludes that ICWA does apply to the child protective proceeding, the circuit 

court’s order terminating the respondent’s parental rights must be vacated and all 

proceedings must begin anew in accord with the procedural and substantive requirements 

of ICWA. 

 We do not retain jurisdiction.
Exhibit 32(i)

                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 on Form 10-QSB of Dialog Group,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Peter V. DeCrescenzo, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, that:

     (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or15(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: July 28, 2006

                                                        /s/ Peter V. DeCrescenzo
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       Peter V. DeCrescenzo, CEO
|     100% NTS Communications, Inc.                    |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|              | 100% NTS Management Company, LLC |
|              | 100% Communications Brokers, Inc. |
|              | 100% NTS Construction Company |
|              | 100% NTS Telephone Company, LLC |
|              | 100% Midcom of Arizona, Inc. |
|              | 100% Garey M Wallace Company, Inc. |
|                                                                     | 100% PRIDE Network, Inc. |
|                                                                     |   |
|     100%  Xfone USA, Inc.                       |
|                                  | 100% eXpeTel Communications, Inc. |
|                                  | 100% Gulf Coast Utilities, Inc. |
[Federal Register: December 20, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 243)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 71233]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20de99-45]

[[Page 71233]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service

31 CFR Part 285

RIN 1510-AA78


Offset of Tax Refund Payments to Collect State Income Tax
Obligations

AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to interim
regulations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In the rules and regulations portion of this Federal Register,
the Financial Management Service is issuing an interim rule setting
forth the rules governing the offset of Federal tax refund payments to
collect State income tax obligations. The Internal Revenue Service
Restructuring and Reform Act of 1988 authorizes the Secretary of the
Treasury to reduce or offset Federal tax refund payments to satisfy
delinquent State income tax obligations. The interim rule also serves
as the text of this notice of proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments will be accepted until January 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Gerry Isenberg,
Financial Program Specialist, Debt Management Services, Financial
Management Service, Department of the Treasury, 401 14th Street S.W.,
Room 151, Washington, D.C. 20227. A copy of this interim rule is being
made available for downloading from the Financial Management Service
web site at the following address: http://www.fms.treas.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Balamaci, Division Director, Debt
Management Services, at (202) 874-6660; Ellen Neubauer or Ronda Kent,
Senior Attorneys, at (202) 874-6680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The interim rule in this issue of the
Federal Register establishes 31 CFR part 285.8. For the text of the
interim rule, see Offset of Tax Refund payments to collect State Income
Tax Obligations, Interim rule, published in the rules and regulations
section of this issue of the Federal Register.

Regulatory Analyses

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as
defined in Executive Order 12866. It is hereby certified that this
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The basis for this certification
is that this proposed rule only impacts individuals who owe delinquent
income tax debt to States and receive a Federal tax refund payment.
Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 285

    Administrative practice and procedures, Claims, Debts, Privacy,
Taxes.
Richard L. Gregg,
Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 99-32680 Filed 12-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-P