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 American Bar Association
Members/State Street Collective Trust (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Phil Lussier, as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     (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.



                                    /s/ Phil Lussier
                                    --------------------------------
                                    Phil Lussier
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    November 9, 2005
J l ^ TRI P T O TH E WORLD 

# ^^tnne t February 24 , 201 0 MKimi^m^KKmi^3aamt r Th e Honorabl e Ra

yLaHoo d > rV ' " Secretary Unite d State s Departmen to fTransportatio n . j : 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , S E Washington , D.C

. 

### 2059 0 Subject : Haned a Combinatio n Service s Allocatio n Proceedin g DOT-OST-2010-001 8 Dea rSecretaryLaHood : A s a dedicate d trave l partne ro fAmerica n Airlines , I a m writin g i n suppor to fAmerican' s applicatio n t o provid e ne wservic e fro m Ne wYork' s Joh n F

. Kenned yInternationa l Airpor t an d Lo

s Angele s Internationa l Airpor tt o Toky o Internationa l Airpor t a t Haneda

. I recogniz e an d applau d yo u an d th e Obam a administratio n fo ryou rsucces s las t Decembe ri n reachin g a landmar k Ope n Skie s agreemen t wit h Japan , whic h open s u p Haned a t o servic e b yU.S

. airlines

. I encourag e you rselectio n o fAmerica n Airline s t o provid e nonsto p servic e fro m Ne w Yor k an d Los Angele s t o Haned a i n orde rt o provid e a n essentia l connectio n betwee n thre e o fth e world' s financia l an d commerc e centers
. Recen tevents , includin g th e successfu l preservatio n o fJapa n Airlines ' oneworl d Allianc e membership , hav e underscore d American' s stron g commitmen t t o th e trans-Pacifi c market

. America n i s likewis e committe d t o Ne wYor k an d Los Angle s - bot h vita l foca l point s o fbusiness , trade , entertainment , technolog yan d educatio n - providin g unsurpasse d ai rservic e sinc e th e mid-1900 s Bot h th e Ne wYor k

an d Lo s Angele s metr o area s wil l gai n significan t economi cbenefit s fro m thes e propose d ne wflights , a s wil l American' s customer s an d employees

. However , w e nee d you rhel p t o mak e th e JFK/Haned a connectio n a reality

. Therefore , I strongl yurg e yo u t o sa yye s t o America n Airline s an d it s reques tfo rslot s t o fl yfro m Kenned yt o Haneda ! Sincerely ,
Fuji o Nakagaw

a 

### President Amne t Ne w York , Inc
. ^g ^ Carnegi e Hal l Towe r• 15 2 Wes t 57t h Street , 8t h Floor , Ne wYork , N Y1001 9 ^^ r(O X Tel : (212 ) 247-190 0 • Fax : (212 ) 247-195 1 WWW.amnet-USa.CO m ^t^ F TM Ne w York

• Bolto n• Chicae o • Miam i • Lo s Angele s • Torranc e• Cost aMes a• Hawai i • Toky o • Osak a
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 566 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the President of the United States 

must immediately establish an interagency Office for Locating and Reuniting Children with Parents in order to protect separated children 

from suffering additional trauma resulting from the ‘‘Zero Tolerance’’ 

policy. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 28, 2018 

Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. PETERS, Mr. CASEY, Ms. 

HASSAN, and Mr. CARPER) submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the President of 

the United States must immediately establish an interagency Office for Locating and Reuniting Children with 

Parents in order to protect separated children from suffering additional trauma resulting from the ‘‘Zero Tolerance’’ policy. 

Whereas families belong together, and innocent children must 

be quickly and safely reunited with their parents who are 

seeking asylum; 

Whereas children and parents are separated between 3 different Federal agencies and remain in an indefinite 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 566 IS 

logistical chaos partly due to inadequate interagency communication; and 

Whereas the Department of Health and Human Services has 

currently identified 2,047 children in the Department’s 

custody as a result of being taken away from their parents: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that— 

2 (1) the Secretary of Homeland Security, the At3 torney General, and the Secretary of Health and 

4 Human Services must immediately establish an 

5 interagency Office for Locating and Reuniting Chil6 dren with Parents; 

7 (2) the Secretary of Health and Human Serv8 ices must appoint a Director for the Office to ensure 

9 the successful and safe reunification of children with 

10 their parents; and 

11 (3) the Office must move with extraordinary 

12 speed and urgency to safely reunify children with 

13 their parents. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Robert L. Deuel, Appellant, v James L. Campbell, as Sheriff of Albany County, Respondent.

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Conboy, J.), entered March 4, 1991 in Albany County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

In a prior habeas corpus proceeding, the County Court of Albany County determined the legality of petitioner’s detention under CPL 30.30 (2) (a). Having done so, the present application for a writ of habeas corpus was properly denied *(see,*CPLR 7003 [b]).

Casey, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CHARLES P. MUISE, 

Appellant, 

v.

Case No. 5D21-1658

LT Case No. 2019-100683-CFDL

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed January 17, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Volusia County, 

Dawn D. Nichols, Judge.

Paula C. Coffman, of Law Office of Paula

Coffman, Orlando, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Roberts J. Bradford, 

Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

LAMBERT, C.J., EVANDER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                EXHIBIT 10.14

                           GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION

           SCHEDULE OF RECIPIENTS OF EXECUTIVE SEPARATION AGREEMENTS 1
           -----------------------------------------------------------


                        RECIPIENT                  PAYOUT PERIOD 2

        Howard Cohen                                    (3)
        David Calabro                                36 months
        Marc Crisafulli                              36 months
        Kathleen McKeough                            36 months
        Jaymin Patel                                 36 months
        Antonio Carlos Rocha                         36 months
        Larry Smith                                  36 months
        Donald Stanford                              36 months
        Donald Sweitzer                              36 months
        W. Bruce Turner                                 (4)



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

1 Sets forth recipients who are, or who were during fiscal 2002, executive
officers and/or directors of GTECH Holdings Corporation and who are currently
parties to separation agreements.

2 Executive is to receive continuation of his base salary at time of separation,
plus certain health, insurance and other benefits for the respective number of
months indicated.

3 See Agreement, dated March 5, 2001, as amended, between Howard Cohen and the
Company.

4 See Agreement, dated as of August 9, 2000, as amended, between W. Bruce Turner
and the Company.
AFS-08-262-E 

Sep 23 2010 

 Exemption No. 10139 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2008-0421 

Mr. R. Mike Rawson 

Director of Operations 

Coastal Helicopters, Inc. 

8995 Yandukin Drive 

Juneau, AK 99801 

Dear Mr. Rawson: 

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our 

decision and explains its basis. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated March 28, 2008, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Coastal Helicopters, Inc. (Coastal), for an exemption from §§ 136.9(a) and 

136.11(c)(2) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, 

would allow Coastal to operate its helicopters over bodies of water and beyond shorelines 

crossed during commercial air tour flights with a life preserver for each occupant but without 

each occupant wearing a life preserver and without its helicopters being float equipped. 

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

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent. 

The FAA issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 9934 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

concluded that the proposed operations, during which passengers would not be wearing life 

preservers and the aircraft would not be equipped with floats, could not be conducted with an 

equivalent level of safety to the rule because the operations would be conducted at altitudes 

equivalent to or exceeding the power-off gliding distance from the shoreline of the certificate 

holder’s assigned helicopters. 
2 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed denial 

of exemption; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed exemption also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby deny the petition of Coastal Helicopter, Inc., for 

an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 136.9(a) and 136.11(c)(2). 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Acting Director, 

 Flight Standards 

Enclosure
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Navy

# AGENCY:

Department of the Navy, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice of Closed Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The SECNAV Advisory Panel will meet from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on May 23, 2012, for a series of classified discussions on the Asia-Pacific region to include the international strategic environment, U.S. operational capabilities and shortfalls, foreign capabilities and intentions and the maritime strategic outlook in contested areas. These sessions will include discussions of classified operations and human intelligence activities. These sessions will also include a proprietary industry briefing on new or evolving energy technologies. For these reasons, these meetings will be closed to the public.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on May 23, 2012, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held in the Pentagon N89 Conference Room at the Pentagon.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

CAPT Henry J. Hendrix, SECNAV Advisory Panel, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of the Navy (Plans, Policy, Oversight & Integration), 1000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-1000, 703-695-3032.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), these matters constitute classified information that is specifically authorized by Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense and are, in fact, properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order. The discussion of such information cannot be adequately segregated from other topics, which precludes opening these meetings to the public. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Navy has determined in writing that the public interest requires that all sessions of this meeting be closed to the public because they will be concerned with matters listed in section 552b(c)(1) of title 5, United States Code.

Dated: April 18, 2012.

J.M. Beal,

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2012-9930 Filed 4-24-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 1 7
- 2370

RANDOLPH LEE DARNELL , Plaintiff

- A ppellee ,

v. DARREN MARSHALL HART , Movant

- Appellant ,

v. SAM R. LLOYD; HULLIHENS LAWN CARE SERVICE, a/k/a Hullihen’s Lawn Care Service ; HULLIHEN’S LAWN CARE, INC., trading as Hullihen’ s Lawn Care, Inc., Defendants

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News

. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 4:14

- cv - 00094

- HCM

LRL )

Submitted : July 20, 2018 Decided: July 25, 2018

Before WYNN and DIAZ , Circuit Judges, and SHEDD , Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Darren M

. Hart, HART & ASSOCIATES, PC, Richmond, Virgini a, for Appellan t. Kevin W

. Mottley, THE MOTTLEY LAW FIRM PLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: In a prior appeal, we reviewed the district court’s award of quantum meru i t attorney’s fees and costs to Darren Marshall Hart in the matter of Darnell v. Lloyd , No. 4:14

- cv - 00094

- HCM

- LRL (E.D. Va.). Although we concluded that the district court “thoroughly analyzed” each of the factors that must be considered in awarding such fe es, we vacated the district court’s order and remanded with instructions to the district court to calculate and explain the basis for the f ee award in light of, and with reference to, the factors specified in County of Campbell v. Howard , 112 S.E. 876, 885 (Va. 1922). Darnell v. Hart , 689 F. App’x 195, 197 ( 4th Cir. 2017). On remand, the district court complied with our instructions and provided additional analysis of the relevant factors and specified how its consideration of each of the factors
affected its computation of the award of attorney’s fees to Hart. Although the district court’s computation resulted in an amount of fees less than that which was awarded upon the court’s prior consideration, the district court increased the fee amoun t to $7500,
d etermining that this amount was “fair and reasonable under the circumstances.” We find that the district court fully complied with our direction on remand and that it did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to Hart. See McAfee v. Boczar , 738 F.3d 81, 88 (4 th Cir. 2013)

. Hart also challenges the award of $2,298.20 in costs , contending that he was entitled to a greater amount. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the d istrict court. Darnell v. Hart, No.4 No. 4:14

- cv - 00094

- HCM

- LRL (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 15, 2017; entered Nov. 16, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and ar gument would not aid the decisional
process. AFFIRM ED
Counties Comprising Each Region Pooled on Federal OrdersDecember 2008

Prepared by:   Market Administrator's Office   Minneapolis, Minnesota   May 2011
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000838

08-APR-2015

08:35 AM
IIB 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1252 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 17, 2019 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 6531 Van Nuys Boulevard in Van Nuys, California, as the ‘‘Marilyn Monroe Post Office’’. 

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


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1252 RFS

1 SECTION 1. MARILYN MONROE POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 6531 Van Nuys Boulevard in 

4 Van Nuys, California, shall be known and designated as 

5 the ‘‘Marilyn Monroe Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Marilyn Monroe Post 

10 Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 16, 

2019. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
### Request for Additional Information - Industrial Aerobotics LLC

9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA)

Dear Mr. Wolcott:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No.

FAA

− 2014

− 0664). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to

process your petition.

• Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s) (i.e., fixed wing, rotorcraft, lighter than

air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including

payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s).

Please submit the additional information (non proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and

submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the

information described above by 9/10/2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the

docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at (202) 267

‐ 9677.

Sincerely,

Jake J Troutman

Program Analyst | Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

202

‐ 267

‐ 9521

Thank you for your interest in aviation safety.

FAA Office of Rulemaking Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 9:53 AM

To: legal@industrialaerobotics.com

Cc: May, Rick (FAA) Pa g e 1 of 1 Request for Additional Informa tion - Industrial Aerobotics LLC

8/26/2015 htt p s://email.dot. g ov/owa/9-AWA-AVS-333Exem p tions @ faa. g ov/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note

...
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Annual Report of Lexington Precision Corporation,
a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the Chairman of the Board, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the undersigned's knowledge:

     (1) the Report of the Company filed today pursuant to Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; and

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



                                             /s/  Michael A. Lubin
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Michael A. Lubin
                                             Chairman of the Board
                                             (Co-Principal Executive Officer)
                                             March 30, 2005



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the
extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification will not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically
incorporates it by reference.