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







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 Annual Report of American Hospital Resources, Inc. a Utah corporation (the Company), on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Mark Buck, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and



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









/s/ Mark Buck

Date: April 8, 2004

Mark Buck

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 73 (Tuesday, April 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 22542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08933]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9804-3]

Proposed Administrative Settlement Agreement Under the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
for the L.E. Carpenter/Dayco Superfund Site Located in Wharton 
Township, Morris County, New Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed administrative settlement and opportunity 
for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') is 
proposing to enter into an administrative settlement agreement 
(``Settlement Agreement'') with L.E. Carpenter and Company (the 
``Settling Party'') pursuant to Section 122 of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (``CERCLA''). 
The Settlement Agreement provides for Settling Parties' payment of 
certain response costs incurred at the L.E. Carpenter/Dayco Superfund 
Site located within Wharton Township, Morris County, New Jersey 
(``Site'').
    In accordance with Section 122(i) of CERCLA, this notice is being 
published to inform the public of the proposed Settlement Agreement and 
of the opportunity to comment. For thirty (30) days following the date 
of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments 
relating to the proposed Settlement Agreement. EPA will consider all 
comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the 
settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations that 
indicate that the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper or 
inadequate. EPA's response to any comments received will be available 
for public inspection at EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, 17th floor, New 
York, New York 10007-1866.

DATES: Comments must be provided by May 16, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference the L.E. Carpenter/Dayco Superfund 
Site, EPA Docket No. CERCLA-02-2011-2008 and should be sent to the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Regional Counsel, New Jersey 
Superfund Branch, 290 Broadway--17th Floor, New York, NY 10007.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A copy of the proposed administrative 
settlement, as well as background information relating to the 
settlement, may be obtained from Clara Beitin, Assistant Regional 
Counsel, New Jersey Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 17th Floor, 290 Broadway, New York, 
New York 10007-1866. Telephone: 212-637-4382.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clara Beitin, Assistant Regional 
Counsel, New Jersey Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 17th Floor, 290 Broadway, New York, 
New York 10007-1866. Telephone: 212-637-4382.

    Dated: March 25, 2013.
Walter Mugdan,
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-08933 Filed 4-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
# C_2015337EN.01003501.xml

| 12.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/35

---

Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Souruh v Council

(Case T-468/15)

(2015/C 337/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Souruh SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

| — | Consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant raises three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-432/11 in Makhlouf v Council
   (1).

Makhlouf

Council

1

---

(1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.

1

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 77100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24632]

[[Page 77100]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    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; Member Conflict: Neurological and Neuropsychological Injuries 
and Disorders.
    Date: November 30, 2023.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Todd Everett White, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-3962, 
[email protected].

(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: November 2, 2023.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-24632 Filed 11-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
No. 62988.

#### Samuel Shapiro & Co., a/c Hutzler Bros. Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 151965-K, etc. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

It was stipulated that the Federal Reserve bank certified dual rates of exchange for the currency involved in the liquidation of the entries for the dates of exportation of the merchandise covered by the entries and that the circumstances relating to the liquidation of the said entries are similar in all material respects to those in Abstract 54732. In view of the stipulation and following the cited decision it was held that the currency of the invoices should have been converted in the manner directed by the judgment of this court in said Abstract 54732, in accordance with Bureau of Customs Circular Letter No. 2675, dated October 19, 1949.
From: Green, Gregory 

Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 10:06 AM

To: Wood, Gil; Cole, David; Aldridge, Amanda

Cc: Edwards, Chebryll

Subject: Conversation with Congressman Bob Goodlatte, Virginia 6th District

Janet and I just had a short conversation with Congressman Goodlatte regarding the Wood Heater NSPS. 

He expressed concerns with the timing of the rule, i.e., that it would be effective immediately and we 

should give these small businesses the opportunity to prepare to meet the standards. Secondly he was 

concerned about the certification issue – that stoves be able to attain certification by the effective date 

and not lay off employees. He also pushed us for a one year sell through for all stoves.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>       6
<SERIES>
   <NUMBER> 5
   <NAME> BELAIR CAPITAL FUND


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                      2,318,848,596
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                     2,697,580,106
<RECEIVABLES>                              17,010,084
<ASSETS-OTHER>                             526,935
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             2,715,117,125
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                   0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                    0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                  631,074,438
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                        631,074,438
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                            0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>                   1,752,925,594
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                      16,346,353
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                      16,568,833
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                  (618,924)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                     0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                    (56,935,785)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                   0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>                   388,671,802
<NET-ASSETS>                               2,084,042,687
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                          33,014,633
<INTEREST-INCOME>                          2,585,098
<OTHER-INCOME>                             0
<EXPENSES-NET>                             30,915,467
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                    4,684,264
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                   (1,847,633)
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>                  175,311,607
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                      178,148,238
<EQUALIZATION>                             0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                  0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                   0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                      0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                    0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>                222,480
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                        0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>                     151,194,315
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                    0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                  (55,088,152)
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                    (5,303,188)
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                 0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                      3,174,777
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         20,403,471
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                            30,915,467
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                       2,007,493,950
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                      116.66
<PER-SHARE-NII>                            0.285
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                    10.545
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                       0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                  0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                       0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                        127.49
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                            3.11


</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 10, 2018

No. 04-18-00587-CV

Beatrice J. Janacek JARZOMBEK, Phillip Janacek, Ben J. Janacek, Kathryn M. Janacek 

Vajdos, Lawrence J. Janacek, Margaret R. Janacek Ryan, Sister Rebecca Janacek and Timothy 

E. Janacek,

Appellants

v.

MARATHON OIL COMPANY,

Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18-01-00016-CVK

Honorable Stella Saxon, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellants’ motion to proceed with appeal without court reporter’s statement of facts 

is hereby GRANTED.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of December, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 6 -00 610 -CR

M aur ic e A. Lom as , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ELL COUNTY , 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 5910 9 , HO NORAB LE JO E CARROLL , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury found appe llant Maurice A. L omas g uilty of failingto reg ister as a sex offe nder. SeeTex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.102 (West 2006) (for mer a rt. 62.10). The court
a sse sse d p un ishme nt, e nh anc e d b y tw o p re vio us fe lony

of fe ns e s, at ni ne ty - n i n e ye a

r s ’ i m p r i so nme nt. Ap pe lla nt’ s c ourt -a

pp ointe d atto rn e y

fi le d a br ie f c on c lud ing

that th e a

pp eal is frivolous and without mer it. The brief meets the re quirements of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by

prese nting a

profe ssional evaluation of t h e re co rd demonstrating why there are no arguable g rounds to be adva nced. Se e als o Pen so n v. Oh io , 4 88 U. S. 7 5 ( 19 88 ); Hi gh v . S tate , 57 3 S.W. 2d 80 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tate , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); J ac k so n v . S tate , 4 85 S.W. 2d

55 3 ( Te x. Cr im. App . 197 2) ; Ga ino us v . S tate , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant also filed a pro se br ief.2 We have r eviewe d the record, c ounsel’s brief , and the pr o se brief

. We find nothing in t he re c or d th a t mi g ht a

rgua bly su pp or t th e a pp e a l. Se e Bl e ds oev . S

tate , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Puryear and He nson Affir med Filed: Jul y

12, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh
# C_2015205EN.01004001.xml

| 22.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/40

---

Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Novartis v OHIM — Meda (Zymara)

(Case T-214/15)

(2015/C 205/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meda AB (Solna, Sweden)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Zymara’ — Application for registration No 9 982 745

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 February 2015 in Case R 550/2014-5

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal has misinterpreted the goods which are ‘pharmaceutical preparations, namely preparations for the treatment of cancer’; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal has misinterpreted the goods which are ‘pharmaceutical preparations, namely preparations for the treatment of cancer’;

| — | The Board of Appeal has incorrectly based its decision on spelling rules which are not existing; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal has incorrectly based its decision on spelling rules which are not existing;

| — | The Board of Appeal has ignored arguments put forward with respect to the comparison of signs and, therefore, incorrectly held that the signs are phonetically similar only to a low degree; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal has ignored arguments put forward with respect to the comparison of signs and, therefore, incorrectly held that the signs are phonetically similar only to a low degree;

| — | The Board of Appeal has put too much wait on the word beginnings within the visual comparison. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal has put too much wait on the word beginnings within the visual comparison.

---
Case 2:03-cv-06604-JP   Document 624   Filed 05/11/15   Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-06604-JP   Document 624   Filed 05/11/15   Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-06604-JP   Document 624   Filed 05/11/15   Page 3 of 3
Document

EXHIBIT 10.5
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 
FRANKLIN ELECTRIC CO., INC.
NONEMPLOYEE DIRECTORS’ DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN


WHEREAS, Franklin Electric Co., Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Franklin Electric Co., Inc. Nonemployee Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan (As Amended and Restated December 13, 2019) (the “Plan”); and


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company retains the authority to amend the Plan and now deems it appropriate to amend the Plan to provide for additional flexibility to change the time and form of distribution under the Plan and to make certain other revisions.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of December 18, 2020, as follows:


1.        Section 6.1 of the Plan is amended by revising the heading to read as “Distribution”.
2.        Section 6.1 of the Plan is further amended by adding a new Section 6.1(d) to read as follows:
(d)       A Participant may modify his or her election as to the form or time of distribution of all or a portion of the Participant’s Account if (i) such election does not take effect until at least 12 months after the date on which the election is made, (ii) the first payment with respect to which such election is made is deferred for a period of not less than five years from the date on which such payment distribution would otherwise have been made or commenced, and (iii) any election related to a payment to be made at a specified date is made at least 12 months prior to the date of the first scheduled payment.  For purposes of this Section 6.1(d), the installment form of distribution described in Sections 6.1(b) and 6.1(c) shall be considered a single payment.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment has been duly executed as of this 18th day of December, 2020.
                                                           
									
			FRANKLIN ELECTRIC CO., INC.
			
			/s/ Jonathan M. Grandon
			Jonathan M. Grandon
			Secretary and General Counsel
No. 64036.

protests 59/13525, etc. (New York).

#### Morganite, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Morganite strips for trolley inserts similar in all *411material respects to those the subject of *Morganite, Inc.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 76, C.D. 1448), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
---

|Exhibit 32.2                                 
|---------------------------------------------
|                                             
|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 Annual Report of Alternet Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to their 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 operation
      of the Company.

|Dated: March 30, 2008 | By: | /s/
      Patrick Fitzsimmons
|--------------------- | --- | -----------------------------
|                      |     | Patrick Fitzsimmons          
|                      |     | Treasurer,                   
|                      |     | Secretary & Director         

---
Before the Third Division,

January 25, 1946

No. 50846.

#### Protest 58233-K of Gerber & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of portions of cheese packed in boxes and that all such portions, except one portion which is Tilsit, are similar in all material respects to the cheese the subject of *Kraft Phenix Cheese Corp.*v. *United States*(10 Cust. Ct. 271, C. D. 767). In accordance therewith the merchandise in question was held dutiable as claimed.
Case 2:04-cv-00265-TON Document 33 Filed 08/15/05 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:04-cv-00265-TON Document 33 Filed 08/15/05 Page 2 of 2
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DESIREE ALIZE PABON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D2022-4181

August 21, 2024

Appeal from the County Court for Hillsborough County; Margaret R. 

Taylor, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Clark E. Green, Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KELLY, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. 

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.