alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<page>	 	   		  EXHIBIT 32.01



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Annual Report of Morgan Stanley Spectrum
Global Balanced L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey
A. Rothman, President, Demeter Management Corporation, the
general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13 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 Partnership.





By:	  /s/	Jeffrey A. Rothman

Name:		Jeffrey A. Rothman
Title:	President

Date:		March 30, 2004
POL_EX10.13_2013.12.31






	
							
	Exhibit 10.13

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	SCHEDULE OF EXECUTIVES WITH MANAGEMENT CONTINUITY AGREEMENTS
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Title
	 
	Name
	 
	Years /Comp*
	 
	Excise Tax Gross Up?

	Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer 
	 
	Stephen D. Newlin
	 
	3
	 
	Y

	Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
	 
	Robert M. Patterson
	 
	3
	 
	Y

	Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	 
	Bradley C. Richardson
	 
	2
	 
	N

	Executive Vice President, Global Operations and Process Improvement
	 
	Thomas J. Kedrowski
	 
	3
	 
	Y

	Senior Vice President, President of Performance Products and Solutions
	 
	Michael A. Garratt
	 
	2
	 
	N

	Senior Vice President, Chief Commercial Officer
	 
	Michael E. Kahler
	 
	3
	 
	Y

	Senior Vice President, President of Designed Structures and Solutions
	 
	Julie McAlindon
	 
	1
	 
	Y

	Senior Vice President and President, Global Specialty Engineered Materials
	 
	Craig M. Nikrant
	 
	1
	 
	Y

	Senior Vice President, President of Distribution
	 
	Kurt C. Schuering
	 
	1
	 
	Y

	Senior Vice President and Chief Information and Human Resources Officer
	 
	Kenneth M. Smith
	 
	3
	 
	Y

	Senior Vice President and President, Global Specialty Color,  Additives and Inks
	 
	John V. Van Hulle
	 
	1
	 
	Y




* Years of compensation payable upon change of control
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Harold FARNER.

No. 53684.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 29, 1973.

Frederick J. King, Jr., King & Gray, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., LeRoy A. Hartley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Woodrow W. Erwin, Dist. Atty., Julian J. Rodrigue, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

MARCUS, Justice.

The defendant was tried and convicted of distribution of a controlled dangerous substance, marijuana, in violation of R.S. 40:966, subd. A. He was sentenced to serve five years and one day at hard labor.

Although one bill of exceptions was reserved during the course of the trial, it was not perfected. Bills not perfected as required by Articles 844 and 845 C.Cr.P. do not constitute formal bills of exceptions for the purpose of appellate review. In the absence of formal bills of exceptions, we are limited on appeal to a review of the pleadings and proceedings for discoverable error. Article 920 C.Cr.P. State v. Batiste, La., 283 So.2d 244, handed down September 24, 1973; State v. James, 258 La. 1018, 249 So.2d 116 (1971). No such patent error appears on the face of this record.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
MPS GROUP, INC.



Exhibit 32.1

MPS GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

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 on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 of MPS Group, Inc. (the Form 10-K), I,
Timothy D. Payne, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director 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:



| | (1) | The Form 10-K 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                        
|/s/    Timothy D. Payne                                                 
|Timothy D. Payne President and Chief Executive Officer February 27, 2007
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 536 

To require a study and report by the Comptroller General of the United 

States regarding the costs of Federal regulations. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 12, 2013 

Mr. RUBIO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To require a study and report by the Comptroller General 

of the United States regarding the costs of Federal regulations. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Regulation Costs to 

5 America Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GAO STUDY ON THE COST OF FEDERAL REGULA7 TIONS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Comptroller General of the 

9 United States shall conduct an annual study of the total 

10 costs of Federal regulations. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 536 IS

1 (b) REQUIREMENT.—In conducting the study re2 quired under subsection (a), the Comptroller General of 

3 the United States shall use a methodology substantially 

4 similar to the methodology used in conducting the study 

5 described in the report entitled ‘‘The Impact of Regulatory 

6 Costs on Small Firms’’ (September 2010), prepared on 

7 behalf of the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business 

8 Administration. 

9 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date 

10 of enactment of this Act, and every year thereafter, the 

11 Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to 

12 Congress a report on the findings of the study conducted 

13 under subsection (a), which shall include an estimate of 

14 the total annual costs of Federal regulations by agency, 

15 as such term is defined in section 551 of title 5, United 

16 States Code. 

17 (d) FUNDING.—The General Accountability Office 

18 shall carry out this section using unobligated funds other19 wise made available to the General Accountability Office. 

20 (e) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con21 gress that no additional funds should be made available 

22 to carry out this section. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
f10q1213ex10i_chinaginseng.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 


借款合同


 


甲方:香港华夏国际实业有限公司


法定代表人:刘长祯


护照号 (身份证号):220502195508150039


乙方:张飞


护照号(身份证号)320830197612122075


 


            双方本着平等互利、协商一致的原则,签订本合同,以资双方信守执行。


 



	
 

	
一、

	
甲方向乙方借款600万美元。乙方负责为甲方筹措资金600万美元用于吉林华夏的资产投资;








	
 

	
二、

	
借款期限:2013年10月29日——2014年2月28日止。








	
 

	
三、

	
甲方同意向乙方一次性支付中介费1,300,000人民币(213,115 美元)。无利息需要支付。








	
 

	
四、

	
甲方保证按时偿还上述借款本金600万美元;如果不能按时偿还,乙方将收回吉林华夏所投资的资产。








	
 

	
五、

	
借款全部到甲方账户后,甲方必须立即划款中介费给乙方。








	
 

	
六、

	
凡因本合同所发生的一切争执,双方应友好协商解决,如协商不能解决则提交当地仲裁机构,根据当地仲裁程序进行仲裁,仲裁费用由败诉方承担。








	
 

	
七、

	
本合同一式两份,双方各执一份,双方法定代表人或本人签字盖章后生效。







 


甲方:香港华夏国际实业有限公司(盖章)


法人代表签字:


乙方:


 


二0一三年十月二十七日


 




  





  











  






 


Loan Contract


 


Party A: Hong Kong Huaxia International Industrial Co.,Ltd.


Legal Representative:Liu, Changzhen


ID number: 220502195508150039


Party B: Zhang, Fei


ID number: 320830197612122075


 


Party A and B have reached the contract through friendly consultation both parties hereby proclaim the following contract for the purpose of abiding execution by both parties.


 


Item 1. Party A borrows $ 6,000,000 from Party B. Party B is responsible for raising funds $ 6,000,000 to be used in the fixed assets investment of Jilin Huaxia Ginseng Co., Ltd, the subsidiary of Party A.


 


Item 2. Loan period: from October 29th,2013 to February 28th,2014.


 


Item 3. Party A agrees to pay a one-time agency fee RMB 1,300,000( $213,115)to Party B without any interests.


 


Item 4. Party A ensures timely to repay the principal of $ 6,000,000 of the above loan, if not, Party B will recover the assets invested in Jilin Huaxia.


 


Item 5. After Party A receives all the loan, the agency fee shall be transferred to Party B as soon as possible.


 


Item 6. Any dispute arising from or in connection with this contract shall be submitted to the local Arbitration Commission for arbitration in accordance with its existing rules of arbitration. The arbitral award is final and binding upon both parties. Arbitration fees shall be borne by the losing party.


 


Item. 7 This contract is written in two originals, one for each party and is valid with signature and stamp.


 


Party A: Hong Kong Huaxia International Industrial Co., Ltd.(Stamp)


 


Legal representative signature:


 


Party B: Zhang, Fei


 


Signature:


 


10-27-2013
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DAVID D. EVERIST,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST 

SERVICE, DONNA MICKLEY, SECRETARY OF THE

INTERIOR, DAYNE BARRON, ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF U.S., AND DOUGLAS FONG, 

Defendants-Appellees,

AND

CITY OF MEDFORD, OREGON, MARK D. CLARKE, 

JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, AND OWEN M. PANNER,

Defendants.

______________________ 

2014-1358

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Oregon in No. 1:14-cv-00199-CL, Magistrate 

Judge Mark D. Clark.

______________________ 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

Case: 14-1358 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 08/05/2014
2 EVERIST v. AGRICULTURE

In light of David D. Everist’s response to this court’s 

show cause order, we consider whether this appeal should 

be transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. 

Everist appeals a decision from the United States 

District Court for the District of Oregon that dismissed 

his complaint appearing to allege violations under the 

Federal Land Policy Management Act and Executive 

Order No. 12630. While this court’s jurisdiction extends 

to Little Tucker Act claims for no more than $10,000, see

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2), here to the extent that Everist’s 

complaint can be read as raising such a claim, it appears 

that he asked for more than the threshold amount. 

Because this case does not fall within our jurisdiction, the 

court will transfer the matter to the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

 (1) The appeal is transferred to the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1631.

 (2) All other pending motions are transferred to the 

Ninth Circuit. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court

s24

Case: 14-1358 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 08/05/2014
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 30, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10651

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

JOHNNY JOSE RAMIREZ

Defendant - Appellant

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:02-CR-114-ALL-C

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Johnny Jose Ramirez appeals his sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a

weapon. Ramirez was sentenced to the maximum statutory sentence

of 120 months, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised

release. 

Ramirez ar gues that the district court misapplied the

sentencing guidelines by enhancing his offense level pursuant to
No. 03-10651

-2-

U.S.S.G. § 2A1.2, the guideline for the offense of second degree

murder, because the district court did not find and the evidence

did not show that he acted with malice. 

 Ramirez argues that because the application of § 2A1.2

dramatically increased his guideline sentencing range, a higher

standard of proof than the preponderance of the evidence was

required to prove the sentencing factors. Ramirez’s 120-month

sentence was not a dramatic departure from the guideline sentence

that could have been imposed if the second degree murder

guideline had not been considered. Therefore, the district court

did not err in failing to require a higher standard of proof than

a preponderance of the evidence at sentencing. See United States

v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir. 1993).

Ramirez concedes that his conduct did not constitute

voluntary manslaughter because he did not act in the heat of

passion or anger. Because Ramirez was a felon illegally in

possession of a firearm at the time of the offense, an unlawful

act, his conduct did not constitute involuntary manslaughter. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 1112(a).

In the absence of evidence that Ramirez believed that his

life was in danger or that he was threatened with serious bodily

harm by the approaching Prado, Ramirez’s decision to shoot Prado 

exhibited extreme recklessness and wanton disregard for human

life sufficient to display malice aforethought. Lara v. U.S.

Parole Comm’n, 990 F.2d 839, 841 (5th Cir. 1993). Ramirez’S
No. 03-10651

-3-

failure to testify at sentencing left unrebutted the reliable

evidence in the presentence report that Prado was unarmed during

the incident and did not present a threat of serious bodily harm

to Ramirez. Because the preponderance of the evidence showed

that Ramirez committed second degree murder, the district court

did not clearly err in relying on § 2A1.2 at sentencing.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          53,460
<SECURITIES>                                    12,045
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,760
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,061
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,217
<PP&E>                                          49,626
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,952
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 260,619
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,946
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           214
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   260,619
<SALES>                                        170,035
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               170,035
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  150,293
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,609
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,064
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,133
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,033
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,033
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .51
        

</TABLE>
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Catarino Mireles Rodriguez, Sr., * From the 266th District Court

of Erath County,

Trial Court No. 10838

Vs. No. 11-14-00217-CR * August 18, 2016

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J.

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
MEMORANDUM

From: Office of Air Qual ity Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency To: EGU NSPS Docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495) Date: August, 2015 Subject: LCOE Costs from Simple Cycle and Combined Cycle Units

Costing Approach

The EPA used the costs used the Energy Informati on Administration (EIA) to compare the levelized costs of electricity of simple cycle and combined cycle combustion turbines at different percentage electric sales and natural gas prices. The EPA also added cost and efficiency impacts to estimate the impacts of starting/stopping and ope ration at part-load conditions.
Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

Shari T. Wilson, Secretary July 21, 2009

Maryland Department of the Environment

1800 Washington Boulevard

Baltimore, MD 21230

Dear Secretary Wilson: 

On June 30, 2009, EPA received a revision to the Maryland State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) from the Maryland Department of the Environment (the Department) pertaining to the one 

sintering plant located at a steel mill in Maryland – Revision #09-02. This SIP revision includes 

amendments to Regulation .03 under COMAR 26.11.10 Control of Iron and Steel Production 

Installations. In its June 30, 2009 transmittal letter, the Department indicated that it was 

withdrawing SIP Revision #07-01 sent to EPA on February 13, 2007 because Revision #09-02 

supersedes and replaces #07-01 in its entirety. EPA has determined that SIP Revision #09-02, 

submitted on June 30, 2009, is administratively and technically complete. EPA is reviewing it to 

prepare a Direct Final Rulemaking Notice (DFR). 

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Marcia Spink, 

Associate Director for Air Programs at (215) 814-2104. She is the principal contact for this 

rulemaking. Pursuant to your request to withdraw it, we are returning the February 13, 2007 

SIP Revision #07-01 to the Department and no longer consider it pending before EPA. 

Sincerely,

Diana Esher, Acting Director

Air Protection Division 

enclosures
EXHIBIT 31.1CERTIFICATION OF REX LICKLIDER
 

 
**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Rex A. Licklider, Chief Executive Officer of The Sports Club Company, Inc. certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of The Sports Club Company, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures (as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation); and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and; 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls overfinancial reporting. Dated September 30, 2005 /s/ Rex A. LickliderRex A. LickliderChief Executive Officer