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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Congoleum Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Roger S. Marcus,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


May 11, 2007

/s/ Roger S. Marcus
-------------------
Roger S. Marcus
Chief Executive Officer
----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/10/2010 02:34 PM

-----

|------------>

| From: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| To: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Cc: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Horowitz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Fred

Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA |

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Date: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|08/09/2010 04:19 PM

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Subject: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|guidance memo on residential/institutional/commercial emergency engine

definition |

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

Cortney,

Attached is the draft memo per your request.

(See attached file: Guidance on RICE NESHAP residential-institutionalcommercial emergency engine definition.doc)

Melanie King

Energy Strategies Group

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency

Mail Code D243-01

RTP, NC 27711

Phone: (919) 541-2469

Fax: (919) 541-5450

king.melanie@epa.gov
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-17679

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:06-cr-00298-WKW-SRW-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

REGINALD LASHAWN SAWYER, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

________________________

(January 3, 2019)

Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-17679 Date Filed: 01/03/2019 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Reginald Lashawn Sawyer appeals the district court’s sua sponte 

determination that he is not eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2). Sawyer contends on appeal that: (1) he is eligible for a sentence 

reduction under § 3582(c)(2) because the Sentencing Commission, through 

Amendment 782, subsequently lowered the Guidelines ranges applicable to his 

sentence, as calculated under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c); and (2) the district court 

abused its discretion by determining Sawyer would not be entitled to a sentence 

reduction even if he were eligible under § 3582(c)(2). We need not address 

Sawyer’s second contention because we conclude Sawyer was ineligible for relief 

under § 3582(c)(2).

 A defendant may be entitled to a reduced sentence under § 3582(c)(2) if he 

“has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that 

has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added). While this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court 

issued its opinion in Koons v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1783 (2018). Koons held 

that sentences are not “based on” Guidelines ranges that subsequently have been 

lowered by the Sentencing Commission” if “the ranges play[ed] no relevant part in 

the judge’s determination of the defendant’s ultimate sentence.” Id. at 1788 

(quotation and alteration omitted). Because the petitioners in Koons received 

sentences “based on” mandatory minimums and substantial assistance to the 

Case: 16-17679 Date Filed: 01/03/2019 Page: 2 of 3 
3

Government, and not on Guidelines ranges that subsequently were lowered by the 

Sentencing Commission, the petitioners did not qualify for reduced sentences 

under § 3582(c)(2). Id. 

Koons is dispositive of Sawyer’s appeal. Like the petitioners in Koons, 

Sawyer’s sentence was based on mandatory minimums and substantial assistance 

to the Government. The Guidelines ranges for Sawyer’s drug offenses, which 

subsequently have been lowered by the Sentencing Commission, “play[ed] no 

relevant part in the judge’s determination of [Sawyer’s] ultimate sentence.” Id. 

Consequently, Sawyer is not eligible for a reduced sentence under § 3582(c)(2).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-17679 Date Filed: 01/03/2019 Page: 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Comarco, Inc., I, Thomas A. Franza, Chief Executive Officer of Comarco, Inc., certify, 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 this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Comarco, Inc.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                        |  | 
|Date: December 13, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Thomas A. Franza   
|                        |  |  |  | Thomas A. Franza       
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the
accompanying report on Form 10-Q. A signed original copy 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.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.12




AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE 
HIGHWOODS PROPERTIES, INC. 
AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN




This Amendment No. 2 (this "Amendment"), dated as of January 24, 2017, is hereby made to the Amended and Restated Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the "Plan") of Highwoods Properties, Inc. (the "Company").
WHEREAS, the Board has delegated to the Committee its powers with respect to administration of the Plan as permitted by Section 6 hereof; and
WHEREAS, the Committee has the power to amend the Plan without the consent of any other person so long as such amendment (1) does not materially and adversely affect any outstanding Option and (2) is not a "material revision" to the Plan as such term is defined by Section 303.A.08 of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual (or any successor rule); and
WHEREAS, after having made a reasonable determination that the Amendment meets the criteria for adoption and approval without the consent of any other person, the Committee has approved and adopted this Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:
SECTION 1 
DEFINED TERMS 
 
The capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Plan, except as otherwise defined or limited herein.
SECTION 2 
EFFECTIVE TIME OF THE AMENDMENT 
 
The Amendment shall become effective as of January 24, 2017.
SECTION 3 
AMENDMENT OF SECTION 4
 
The first sentence of Section 4 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:
Each Eligible Employee shall notify the Company, on such forms as shall be provided by the Company, at least 10 business days before the applicable Offering Date, of the percentage (in whole numbers) of Compensation which the Eligible Employee wishes to have withheld ratably from the Eligible Employee's Compensation during the Offering Period, which percentage may not be less than 1%, or more than 25%.


1







SECTION 4 
AMENDMENT OF SECTION 7(b)


The first sentence of Section 7(b) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:
An Eligible Employee may at any time at least 10 business days before an Exercise Date (or such other date as may be selected by the Committee) terminate the Option in its entirety by written notice of such termination delivered in the manner set forth in subsection 14(i).
Except as amended by this Amendment, the Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed in all other respects and shall otherwise remain unmodified and in full force and effect.


2
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 211 (Friday, October 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 59010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28907]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 03/73-0212]


CEO Venture Fund III, L.P.; Notice of Issuance of a Small 
Business Investment Company License

    On December 26, 1996, an application was filed by CEO Venture Fund 
III, L.P., at 2000 Technology Drive, Suite 160, Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania 15219-3109, with the Small Business Administration (SBA) 
pursuant to Section 107.300 of the Regulations governing small business 
investment companies (13 C.F.R. 107.300 (1996)) for a license to 
operate as a small business investment company.
    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Section 301(c) of the 
Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, after having 
considered the application and all other pertinent information, SBA 
issued License No. 03/73-0212 on August 1, 1997, to CEO Venture Fund 
III, L.P. to operate as a small business investment company.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 59.011, Small 
Business Investment Companies)

    Dated: October 22, 1997.
Don A. Christensen,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 97-28907 Filed 10-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Warren J. TULLIER, Sr., et al. v. TANSON ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.

No. 62636.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: Tanson Enterprises, Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 359 So.2d 654.

Writ granted.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

Order 

April 15, 2016

153370-3(59)

In re Estate of IRENE GORNEY.

_________________________________________

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 153370

v COA: 323090

Huron Probate Court: 

ESTATE OF IRENE GORNEY, 13-039597-CZ

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

In re Estate of WILLIAM B. FRENCH.

_________________________________________

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 153371

v COA: 323185

Calhoun Probate Court:

DANIEL GENE FRENCH, Personal 2013-000992-CZ

Representative for the Estate of WILLIAM

B. FRENCH,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

In re Estate of WILMA KETCHUM.

_________________________________________
2

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 April 15, 2016

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 153372

v COA: 323304

Clinton Probate Court:

ESTATE OF WILMA KETCHUM 14-028416-CZ

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

In re Estate of OLIVE RASMER.

_________________________________________

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 153373

v COA: 326642

Bay Probate Court:

RICHARD RASMER, Personal Representative 14-049740-CZ

of the Estate of OLIVE RASMER

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants-appellees to extend the 

time for filing their answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The 

application will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before April 28, 2016.

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheets, statements of operations and statements of cash
flows as reported in the form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,085
<SECURITIES>                                    24,600
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,015
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     66,673
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               117,454
<PP&E>                                          83,653
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,672
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 224,715
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,075
<BONDS>                                         86,925
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            99
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,905
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   224,715
<SALES>                                        125,992
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               127,763
<CGS>                                           87,946
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   87,946
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                31,060
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,599
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,984
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,867
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,117
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,117
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .31
        

</TABLE>
254 La. 751

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Gregg Alan BECK.

No. 50089.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 29, 1969.

SUMMERS, J.

I believe the application of the State should be granted. The case presented is distinguishable from the authority relied upon (Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374, 89 S. Ct. 575, 21 L.Ed.2d 607 (1969)) in that no formal charge by way of indictment, bill of information or affidavit has been filed against Beck. In my view a hearing should be held, giving the State an opportunity to prove its assertions.
## Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission Lawrence Bengal, Director



### Shale Play Water Management Congress 2014 Southern States Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma & Arkansas November 19 - 20 Dallas, Texas Regulatory Updates On Water Disposal And Discharge To Budget For Future Projects And Ensure Compliance

## 4400+ wells (since 2005) 

## Fayetteville Shale Production Area

500 new wells completed annually Shale production area located outside “ legacy” production area resulting in very limited fluid disposal options with no nearby SDW wells, requiring significant truck transportation during early developmentperiod

### Water Disposal - Perspective

2012 Data

 Water Used for hydraulic stimulation– 90.7 million bbls  Water recovered as flow - back and produced– 18.5 million bbls  Water Disposed in AR Class II SWD wells– 6.1 million bbls

## Arkansas Agencies Regulating Water Sources, Storage and



# Disposal  ANRC : Arkansas Natural Resources Commission  AOGC : Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission  ADEQ : Arkansas Depart of Environmental Quality  USACE : US Army Corps of Engineers

4

## Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality

Regulates Class II SWD Well surface facilities

# Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission Issue Permits and Regulate UIC Class II SWD Wells

## Fayetteville Shale Production Area

7 SWD Wells 10 SWD Wells

17 SWD Wells - 175 miles to South Arkansas 150 miles to OKDisposal Well Moratorium in Shale Area Seismic Permit Conditions Adopted for Adjacent AreasPotential for Seismic Activity Stressed fault (basement) Communication with fault Large volume injected SWD SWD SWD 2010 event 1982 event – 22 years before shale drilling in areaDeep Fault Trend

### AOGC Rule H - 1 – 2011 Rule Amendment to

Address Potential Seismicity

 Only applies to Fayetteville Shale production area.
 Moratorium area established (4 existing SWD wells plugged).
 SWD well set-back from faults (1-5 mile based on fault type).
 SWD well spacing (1/2 – 5 miles based on disposal zone).

### AOGC Rule H - 1 – 2011 Rule Amendment to

Address Potential Seismicity

 Director may require additional seismic information and fault location during permit review.  Well flow meters required and injection pressure and volume of fluid injected required to be reported on a daily basis.  Commission has authority to modify permit requirements after notice and hearing as new data developed in future.

# QUESTIONS ?
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32-A


    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 True Value Company (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 2, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned
officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such
officer's knowledge:

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         Section 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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
         Report.


Date: May 16, 2005

/s/ THOMAS S. HANEMANN
-------------------------------------
Thomas S. Hanemann
President and Chief Executive Officer


/s/ DAVID A. SHADDUCK
-------------------------------------
David A. Shadduck
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to True Value Company and will be retained by True Value Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTI AL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(D)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court
The State, Petitioner,

v. Ricky Darren Sanders, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2010-173047

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal From Sumter County R. Ferrell Cothran, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Mem orandum Opinion No. 2012-MO-40 Heard October 3, 2012 – Filed October 24, 2012

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Ernest Adolphus Finney, III, of Sumter, for Petitioner.Susan Barber Hackett, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: We granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in State v. Sanders , Op. No. 2010-UP-362 (S.C. Ct. App. filed July 12, 2010). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.
DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY , KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.