alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
      32.3




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**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 Frezer, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-QSB/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), 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 his 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.




Dated:
      September 14, 2006




By:
            /s/
              David KoosDavid
              KoosChief
              Executive Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, or other document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise
      adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
      of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Frezer,
      Inc. and will be retained by Frezer, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 3 - 079 6 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 3 -NM - 111 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2582

STANISLAW W. ZAJACZKOWSKI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOLANTA T. ZAJACZKOWSKI,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA96-1799-PJM)

Submitted: May 1, 1997 Decided: May 7, 1997

Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanislaw W. Zajaczkowski, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* To the extent that Appellant's petition was denied for reasons other than those stated in the district court's order denying

his motion for reconsideration, he has waived review of those

issues by his failure to provide a transcript of that hearing. See

Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th

Cir. 1992).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders (1) denying

his petition for return of a child pursuant to the Hague Convention

on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and its implementing legislation, the International Child Abduction Remedies

Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 11601-11610 (West 1995); and (2) denying his

motion for reconsideration, Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. Our review of the

record and the district court's orders discloses no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Zajaczkowski v. Zajaczkowski, No. CA-96-1799-PJM (D. Md.

Oct. 7, 1996).* We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 A0 62 0 . FULLER v . W HI TEHEAD et a l

.
Th e ap p el l an t h av i n g m o v ed t o wi t h d raw h er ap p eal , t h e m o t i o n i s h ereb y GRANTED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 

## 05/24/2016 May 24, 2016
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 12331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4758]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Committee Management; Notice of Establishment

    The Director of the National Science Foundation has determined that 
the establishment of the Advisory Committee for Innovation Corps is 
necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance 
of duties imposed upon the National Science Foundation (NSF), by 42 
U.S.C. 1861 et seq. This determination follows consultation with the 
Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration.
    Name of Committee: Advisory Committee for Innovation Corps 
(<greek-i>80463).
    Purpose: The Committee will provide advice to the National Science 
Foundation (NSF) on the direction, development, and enhancement of the 
Innovation Corps (I-Corps) program. The I-Corps program creates an 
opportunity to assess the readiness of emerging technology concepts and 
research results that show the immediate potential for broader 
applicability and impact. These results may be translated into valuable 
new technologies and products with near-term benefits to business, the 
economy and society. Specialized guidance may be addressed through the 
use of subcommittees, task groups or committees of visitors (COVs) 
within the structure of the Committee.
    Responsible NSF Official: Dedric A. Carter, Senior Advisor for 
Strategic Initiatives, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: 703/292-8002.

     Dated: February 23, 2012.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-4758 Filed 2-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

DANIEL SAWYER, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D13-6117 ) DENNIS EDWARD BOOTHE, VINCEN ) A. BOOTHE, REBECCA BOOTHE, ) ELAINE DANIELLE BOOTHE, ) VANESSE BOOTHE, ) ) Appellees. ) ___________________________________ ) Opinion filed October 1, 2014. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Bernard C. Silver, Judge. Daniel Sawyer, pro se. Albert C. Penson and Stephanie R. Hayes of Penson Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellees.

KHOUZAM, Judge. Daniel Sawyer appeals an order dismissing with prejudice his co mplaint in which he alleged that the attorney who represented him at a cri minal trial committed legal malpractice. Although the trial court erred when it dism issed the complaint based- 2 - on the statute of limitations, we nevertheless affirm the dismi ssal with prejudice because it is apparent the complaint cannot be amended to state a cause of action. See Samuels v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale, 782 So. 2d 489, 4 95 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) ("If a complaint does not state a cause of action, the op portunity to amend a complaint should be liberally given, unless it is apparent the pleading cannot be amended to state a cause of action."). For his legal malpractice claim to be successful, Sawyer needed to prove that he had obtained postconviction relief and that he was actu ally innocent. See Cira v. Dillinger, 903 So. 2d 367, 370-71 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Attac hed to the complaint was a postconviction order vacating Sawyer's sentence and allowing him to plead guilty. The stated basis for the postconviction relief was Sawyer's tes timony that he was guilty and would have pleaded guilty had his attorney conveyed a plea offer to him. Therefore, in establishing the "exoneration" element of his leg al malpractice claim, Sawyer has negated the "innocence" element and he cannot state a cause of action. Because the trial court reached the correct result, albeit for the wrong reasons, we affirm. See Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 906 (Fla. 2002 ).

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND and MO RRIS, JJ., Concur.
AFS

- 1 3

- 097

- E January 10, 2013

Exemption No. 9890B Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2009

- 0416

Mr. Gr egory K. Troxell Director of Safety, Security & Regulatory Compliance Air Transport International, LLC

2800 Cantrell Road Little Rock, AR 72202

Dear Mr. Troxell :

This letter is to inform y o u that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 98 90. It expl ains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated October 24, 2012

, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Admin istration on

behalf of Air Transport International, LLC (ATI) , for an extension of Exemption No. 9890. That exemption from § 121.310(d)(4) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)

allo ws ATI ’s McDonnell Douglas DC

– 8 airplanes to carry passengers without a cockpit control device for each emergency light

.

In your petition you in dicate there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register

. T he requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to ATI.

Our Decision

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, I grant your petition

.2

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termin ation date of Exemption No. 9890 to J une 30, 201 5

, unless

so oner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and l imitations of Exemption No. 98 90 remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 98 90

.

Sincerely,

/s/

John M. Allen Director, Flight Standards Service
Ms. Nicole Sullivan 

Wolff & Samson 

1 Boland Drive 

West Orange, NJ 07052 

Dear Ms Sullivan: 

I am writing to notify you that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is extending 

the due date to submit comments related to the Troy Chern Corp Inc site. This site was proposed 

for listing on the National Priorities List (NPL) on December 12, 2013 with a 60-day comment 

period that was scheduled to end on February 10, 2014. Now, all commenter will have until 

March 27, 2014 to submit comments. 

EPA will consider all comments received by March 27,2014. Please use Docket ID 

Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635 for submittal ofyour comments via 

http://www.regulations.gov. You may verify receipt of comments by checking back on 

www.regulations.gov (please allow a day or two for web posting). 

Sincerely, 

National Priorities List Coordinator- Region 2
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-13-0063

SAT Date: 11/9/2012

Print Date: 2/4/2013

Related cases:

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 2 3

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

1 11

Exposure Based Review:

Health: No

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Dermal Inhalation 

Ecotox: All releases to water

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: IRR-E,S,L,MM, LUNG, UNCERT-SENS, AQUATOX-A,C

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-13-0063-77

FATE: Estimations for typical 

Liquid with MP < 25 C (E)

log Kow = 3.30 (E) 

S = Dispersible / 73.2 mg/L at 25 C (ICB / E)

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E)

BP > 400 C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

log Koc = 5.66 (E)

log Fish BCF = 1.85 (E)
log Fish BAF = 1.79 (E) 

POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk-mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong

PBT Potential: P1B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is poor through the skin, moderate through 

the GI tract, and good through the lungs based on analogs. The PMN material is expected to be 

a strong irritant to all exposed tissues based on the amines and the surfactant properties of the 

material. There is also concern for lung effects if respirable particles are inhaled based on 

cationic binding to lung tissues and/or interference with the natural surfactant balance in the 

lungs. There is uncertain concern for sensitization for the . Moderate 

concern. 

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 0.28

daphnid 48-h LC50 0.050

green algal 96-h EC50 0.018

fish _ chronic value 0.004

daphnid _ chronic 

value

0.006

algal _ chronic 

value

0.008

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for aliphatic amines and amides; 

SAR chemical class = aliphatic amine, amide; ; liquid; log Kow = 5.67 (EPI); S = 

dispersible in water at 25 C (P); pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active 

ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness < 150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC 

<2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

1

SARs aliphatic amines and amides

SAR Class aliphatic amine, amide

Ecotox Category Aliphatic Amines
Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: Becky Jones
exhibit10_1.htm






Exhibit 10.1


AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE


TO THE


HENRY SCHEIN, INC.


1994 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


(As Amended and Restated Effective as of March 27, 2007)


 


WHEREAS, Henry Schein, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Henry Schein, Inc. 1994 Stock Incentive Plan (as amended and restated effective as of March 27, 2007), as amended (the “Plan”);


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13 of the Plan, the Company has reserved the right to amend the Plan;


 


WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in certain respects; and


 


WHEREAS, approval by the Company’s stockholders is not required with respect to these amendments.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended effective on the date hereof, as follows:


 



	
1.  

	
The last sentence of Section 9(a) of the Plan is hereby amended by inserting “(“Permitted Events”)” to the end of the first proviso therein.







 



	
2.  

	
The following sentence is hereby added to the end of Section 9(a) of the Plan as follows:







 


“Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan to the contrary, effective as of the date of the Company’s 2009 annual stockholders’ meeting, the Committee shall not be authorized to provide for the earlier lapsing of restrictions with respect to any Award of Restricted Stock (including an Award of Restricted Stock in the form of a Restricted Stock Unit) for any reason except as permitted with respect to the Permitted Events and 5% of the total number of Shares reserved for Awards under the Plan, in each case, as provided in the preceding sentence.”







 



	
3.  

	
Except as amended hereby and expressly provided herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.











  





  











  








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment has been executed February 23, 2010.







                                                                                                                     HENRY SCHEIN, INC.


 



	
 


By:

	
 


/s/ Michael S. Ettinger


	  	
Name: Michael S. Ettinger


	  	
Title: Senior Vice President







 


 


 




 




  





2
FILED

December 18, 1997

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

ASHAD RASHAD ABDULLAH ALI )

MUHAMMAD, )

) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9707-CC-00300

Appellant, ) (No. S9700035 Below)

) LINCOLN COUNTY

VS. )

) The Hon. William Charles Lee

STATE OF TENNESSEE, )

) AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20

Appellee. ) (DismissalofPetitionforWrit of Habeas

) Corpus)

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion requesting that the

judgment in the above-styled cause be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of

Criminal Appeals Rules.

In this appeal from the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, the

appellant raises three issues: 1) whether the trial judge should have recused himself in this

matter, 2) whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction, and 3) whether the 1985

indictments under which the appellant was convicted were fatally defective because they

did not specify the mens reas for the offenses.

We agree with the state that the appellant should have filed his habeas

corpus petition in Davidson County, rather than Lincoln County, because he was

incarcerated at Riverbend Maximum Security Institution in Davidson County, Tennessee

at the time he filed his petition. Under T.C.A. § 29-21-105, petitions for habeas corpus

relief should be made to the court or judge most convenient in point of distance to the

application, unless a sufficient reason be given in the petition for not applying to such court

or judge. Here, the appellant contends that his petition was properly filed in Lincoln County

because the original indictments and record were in the Lincoln County trial court’s

possession. This is not a sufficient reason to give the Lincoln County trial court jurisdiction

over the appellant’s petition. 

Moreover, had the trial court attempted to convert the petition for writ of
-2-

habeas corpus to a petition for post-conviction relief, as authorized by statute, the claim

would have been dismissed as time barred. See T.C.A. § 40-30-202; Archer v. State, 851

S.W.2d 157 (Tenn. 1993). According to the appellant’s pleadings, he was convicted in

1985 of burglary, armed robbery, and aggravated rape. There is no record that an appeal

was taken after the appellant was convicted. Accordingly, even if the trial court had

considered the appellant’s petition as a petition for post-conviction relief, the appellant

would have been barred by the one-year statute of limitation.

Without addressing the appellant’s other issues, we find that the judgment

of the trial court should be affirmed because the petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed

in the wrong court.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the state’s motion to affirm the

judgment of the trial court under Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules, is

granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs are taxed to the appellant.

ENTER, this the ____ day of December, 1997.

_____________________________

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE

CONCUR:

_____________________________

JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE

_____________________________

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.1*

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

The undersigned officer of Cognex Corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies
that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2005 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 1, 2006

                                        /s/ Robert J. Shillman
                                        ----------------------
                                        Robert J. Shillman
                                        Chief Executive Officer and
                                        Chairman of the Board of Directors
                                        (principal executive officer)

* This certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of
that section, nor shall it be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any
filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
November 15, 2012 

Carl Daly 

US EPA Region 8 

1595 Wynkoop Street 

Denver, CO 80202-1129 

Dear Mr. Daly: 

DEPARTMENT of ENVIRONMENT 

and NATURAL RESOURCES 

PMB 2020 

JOE FOSS BUilDING 

523 EAST CAPITOl 

PIERRE, SOUTH DAKOTA 57501-3182 

www .state.sd.us/denr 

On March 21 , 2011, EPA promulgated new rules under 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart LLLLStandards of Performance for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units and 40 CFR Part 60, 

Subpart MMMM- Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Existing Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units. We have reviewed the sources in South Dakota and have determined that 

there are no sources subject to these two rules. 

The South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources is hereby notifying EPA 

that there are no new or existing sewage sludge incineration units in South Dakota that meet this 

criteria. Therefore, the department will not be submitting an implementation plan required under 

Section 111 (d) of the federal Clean Air Act. 

Sincerely, 

9?LU/-

Kyrik Rombough 

Engineering Manager I 

Air Quality Program 

cc: Kendra Morrison ~ 

US EPA Region 8 

DEPARTMENT of ENVIRONMENT 

and NATURAL RESOURCES 

PMB 2020 

JOE FOSS BUILDING 

523 EAST CAPITOL 

PIERRE SOUTH DAKOTA 57501-3182 

RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED 

t2ec. fd_ lt/ZJftz._ /liZ KENDRA MORRISON 

US EPA REGIN 8 

II ocn 

wen 

a:: 

f U::: 

1595 WYNKOOP STREET 

DENVER CO 80202-1129 

-H-::>X·-\F\::.5 "B B t".r2.\.r2. I! ,,l,ll,llrrlrlll,,,, ,(,( .. ,