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



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003 In connection with the Quarterly Report of T-3 Energy Services, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Michael T. Mino, Corporate Controller of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003,
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/ MICHAEL T. MINOMichael T. MinoCorporate Controller
May 12, 2004
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to T-3 Energy Services, Inc. and will be retained by T-3 Energy
Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Exhibit 23


                          Independent Auditors' Consent
                          -----------------------------


The Partners of
Kaneb Pipe Line Partners, L.P.:


          We consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  registration
statement numbers  333-98621,  333-88004,  333-59767,  333-76067,  333-65896 and
333-62296  on Form S-3 of Kaneb Pipe Line  Partners,  L.P.  and in  registration
statement  numbers  333-71638  and  333-108642  on Form S-3 of Kaneb  Pipe  Line
Operating Partnership,  L.P. of our report dated February 20, 2004, with respect
to the  consolidated  balance  sheets of Kaneb  Pipe  Line  Partners,  L.P.  and
subsidiaries  as of  December  31, 2003 and 2002,  and the related  consolidated
statements of income,  partners' capital and cash flows for each of the years in
the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, and related  financial  statement
schedule,  which report  appears in the December 31, 2003 annual  report on Form
10-K of Kaneb  Pipe  Line  Partners,  L.P.  Our  report  refers  to a change  in
accounting for asset retirement obligations.

                                           KPMG LLP

Dallas, Texas
March 12, 2004
Lista de verificación para mantillo 

de reemplazo y alimento para 

aves de corral 

Dos elementos que debe tener en abundancia en su instalación avícola son alimentos y mantillos 

limpios. También pueden atraer la atención no deseada de animales silvestres, roedores e 

insectos. Es importante ser cuidadoso a la hora de recibir, almacenar y manipular estos elementos 

a fin de reducir el riesgo de contaminación. Al seguir algunos simples pasos, puede garantizar la 

seguridad del alimento y los mantillos para las aves de corral, y asegurarse de que no contengan 

gérmenes que puedan enfermar a sus aves.

√

Servicio de Inspección de Sanidad de Animales y Plantas

Consulte la lista incluida en el reverso 

para obtener consejos para ayudar a 

proteger la salud de sus bandadas.

Si ve algún síntoma de enfermedad, ¡actúe de inmediato!

Veterinario

Oficina de Extensión Cooperativa

Veterinario/laboratorio de diagnóstico estatal 

de animales o aves de corral

USDA

Número de teléfono

866.536.7593

Reporte las aves enfermas
Lista de verificación: mantillo 

de reemplazo y alimento para 

aves de corral 

√

Asegúrese de que los remolques de entrega 

estén cubiertos para evitar la contaminación del 

alimento, los ingredientes de alimentos y el mantillo 

fresco durante el transporte hacia la granja.

Almacene el alimento, los ingredientes de alimentos 

y el mantillo fresco en cestos o estructuras 

cerradas para evitar la contaminación.

Tenga cuidado al trasladar los elementos 

almacenados como el alimento, los 

ingredientes de alimentos y el mantillo fresco 

dentro de las granjas avícolas. Solo utilice 

equipos limpios y desinfectados, o mejor aún, 

equipos dedicados únicamente a la manipulación 

de alimentos y mantillo fresco.

Limpie cualquier derrame lo antes posible para 

reducir el riesgo de atraer animales silvestres y roedores.

Conserve el alimento en bolsas que no toquen el 

piso e implemente medidas de control de roedores 

en el lugar.

Controle a diario los derrames de alimento. Identifique 

dónde ocurren los derrames de alimento y trabaje en la 

reducción de estos.

Anótelo. Incluya en su plan de bioseguridad los pasos 

tomados en el lugar para proteger el alimento y el mantillo 

de las aves de corral contra la contaminación de aves 

silvestres, roedores, insectos y otros animales. Esto puede 

incluir protocolos escritos, hojas de registro y pautas para 

contratistas.

Esta lista de verificación es una guía para emplear buenas prácticas de bioseguridad, pero si tiene 

un plan de bioseguridad específico para el lugar, asegúrese de seguirlo. Los criadores comerciales 

deben asegurarse de que sus planes específicos para el lugar cumplan con los principios de 

bioseguridad del Plan Nacional de Mejoramiento Avícola.

El USDA es un proveedor y empleador que brinda 

igualdad de oportunidades.

Servicio de Inspección de Sanidad de Animales y Plantas

Ayuda de Programa N° 2235-14S | Emitido en febrero de 2020

Para obtener más información sobre cómo proteger la salud de sus 

aves de corral, siga a Defend the Flock en Facebook y Twitter y 

visite www.aphis.usda.gov/animalhealth/defendtheflock.
Exhibit



EXHIBIT 10.34





Amendment to the Darden Restaurants, Inc. 2015 Omnibus Incentive Plan.


On May 23, 2018, the Compensation Committee of the Darden Restaurants, Inc. Board of Directors (the “Committee”) approved an amendment to the Darden Restaurants, Inc. 2015 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “Omnibus Incentive Plan”), effective as of November 2, 2017, by adding the following new section to the Omnibus Incentive Plan immediately following Section 13.6.8 thereof:
“13.6.9      Grandfathered Status.  All Grandfathered Awards are intended to be exempt from the changes to Section 162(m) of the Code under Section 13601(e)(2) of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (P.L. 115-97) and shall be administered appropriately under the terms of the Plan so that such Performance-Based Awards shall continue to receive the favorable tax treatment provided to Qualified Performance-Based Compensation under former Section 162(m).  For purposes of this Section 13.6.9, the term “Grandfathered Awards” shall mean Performance-Based Awards granted to Covered Employees on or before November 2, 2017 that were intended to constitute Qualified Performance-Based Compensation and remain outstanding.”
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Doing Business with the Marketing

and Regulatory Programs

Last Modified: 

Print

Contract Opportunities

Contract opportunities are procurement notices from federal contracting offices.

Anyone interested in doing business with the government can use this system to

search opportunities. Opportunities include pre-solicitation notices, solicitation

notices, award notices, and sole source notices.

Learn More at SAM.gov

Small and Disadvantaged Businesses/AbilityOne

The Marketing and Regulatory Programs Small Business Coordinator fosters the use

of small and disadvantaged businesses as Federal contractors. For more information

contact Michael Chiodi, Small Business Coordinator/AbilityOne Liaison at

michael.j.chiodi@usda.gov or 612-336-3203.

System for Award Management (SAM)

The System for Award Management (SAM) is an official website of the U.S.

government. There is no cost to use SAM. You can use this site to:
Register to do business with the U.S. government

Update or renew your entity registration

Check status of an entity registration

Search for entity registration and exclusion records

And much more

Effective October 1, 2012, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), requires that

vendors be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database

BEFORE they can be awarded contracts.  For more information or to register, go to

SAM.gov.

Invoice Processing Platform (IPP)

IPP is a web-based system that provides one integrated, secure system to simplify

the management of vendor invoices. It is offered at no charge to Federal agencies

and their vendors. USDA encourages all vendors to use IPP.

Learn More About IPP

Vendor Assistance

For help with FedBizOpps, SAM and IPP contact the Federal Service Desk:

Hours of Operation

Monday - Friday 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. ET

U.S. calls: 866-606-8220

International calls: +1 334-206-7828

DSN: 94-866-606-8220

https://www.fsd.gov/fsd-gov/home.do

Have questions about doing business with Marketing Regulatory Programs?

Visit Our Business Services Directory
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-20868

JOHNNY PAUL PENRY, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

-------------------- August 14, 2001
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM: In 1980, Johnny Paul Penry was convicted in Texas state court of the capital murder of Pamela Carpenter. He was sentenced to death. The United States Supreme Court vacated Penry’s sentence because the jury had not been adequately instructed with respect to mitigating evidence. Penry v. Lynaugh , 492 U.S. 302 (1989). The State of Texas retried Penry in 1990 and Penry was again convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Penry’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal and deniedNo. 99-20868 -2- Penry’s state application for a writ of habeas corpus. Penry then filed a federal application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court denied federal habeas relief and denied Penry’s motion for a certificate of appealablity (COA) to challenge its decision. Penry filed a motion for a COA in this court, which we denied. Penry v. Johnson , 215 F.3d 504, 512 (5th Cir. 2000). Thereafter, Penry petitioned for, and the United States Supreme Court granted, a writ of certiorari. Penry v. Johnson , 121 S. Ct. 563 (2000). The Supreme Court affirmed our order denying Penry’s motion for a COA except with respect to Penry’s claim that he was sentenced to death in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because the jury instructions given in his case prevented jurors from considering and giving effect to substantial mitigating evidence that Penry was mentally retarded and was severely abused as a child. Penry v. Johnson , 121 S. Ct. 1910, 1924 (2001). The Court reversed our denial of a COA as to that issue and remanded the case to this court for further proceedings. Id. The Court held that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in concluding that the jury instructions given in Penry’s case satisfied the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at 1918, 1924. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, we GRANT Penry’s motion for a COA with respect to his jury instruction claim, VACATE the district court’s judgment denying Penry’s application for a federal writ of habeas corpus, and REMAND the case to theNo. 99-20868 -3- district court. The district court is instructed to grant Penry’s application for a writ of habeas corpus unless the State of Texas within a reasonable time either grants Penry a new trial on the issue of punishment only, as permitted by Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.29(c), or vacates Penry’s sentence and imposes a sentence less than death. See Moore v. Johnson , 194 F.3d 586, 622 (5th Cir. 1999). COA GRANTED; VACATED and REMANDED.
#### Walter Gieseking, Plaintiff, *v.*Urania Records, Inc. et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

July 6, 1956.

*Dwight, Boy all, Harris, Koegel <3 Caskey*for plaintiff.

*Telsey, Lowenthal, Bothenberg <3 Mason*for defendants.

Vincent A. Lupiano, J.

Defendant Urania Records, Inc. moves for dismissal of the complaint for insufficiency. Plaintiff is a renowned pianist. In a first cause of action based on sections 50 and 51 of the Civil Rights Law he alleges that defendant has made reproductions from phonograph records *1035of plaintiff’s performances and has sold them as plaintiff’s performances, and has used plaintiff’s name in connection with such sales. Such use is unauthorized while plaintiff is under contract with a foreign corporation for the reproduction of his performances on phonograph records for compensation. However, he receives no compensation for the use of his name or from the sale of defendant’s reproductions, which, it is alleged, are inferior.

In the second cause of action based upon a claim of unfair competition, plaintiff alleges, in addition, that defendant has secured certain magnetic tapes containing reproductions of plaintiff’s performances and that such tapes were not rendered for such purpose.

As to the first cause of action, defendant contends that plaintiff is a public figure and does not desire “to be let alone consequently, his civil rights cannot be invaded. It relies on *Gautier*v. *Pro-Football*(304 N. Y. 354). That case had a limited application not pertinent here. (See *Jansen*v. *Hilo Packing Co.,*202 Misc. 900.) A performer has a property right in his performance that it shall not be used for a purpose not intended, and particularly in a manner which does not fairly represent his service. The originator or his assignee of records of performances of an artist does not, by putting such records on public sale, dedicate the right to copy or sell the record. *(Capitol Records*v. *Mercury Records Corp.,*221 F. 2d 657 [C. C. A. 2d].)

As to the second cause, it comes clearly within *Metropolitan Opera Assn.*v. *Wagner-Nichols Recorder Corp.*(199 Misc. 786, affd. 279 App. Div. 632).

The motion is denied.
500	N.	Akard	Street	·	Suite	2700	·	Dallas,	Texas	75201	·	Tel:	(214)	706‐4200	·	Fax:	(214)	706‐4242	·	www.solidcounsel.com	

April 20, 2015 

Via Electronic Mail 

Court of Appeals for the 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

600 Commerce Street, Suite 200 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

 Re: Case No. 05-15-00217-CV 

Tru Exploration, LLC, Tru Exploration “Creating Tru Partners,” LLC, 

Trent Trubenbach, and Donna Burton, Appellants v. Energy Exploration 

I, LLC and Energy Exploration II, LLC, Appellees 

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District of the District Court of Collin 

County, Texas, Cause No. 416-00031-2015 

Dear Court of Appeals: 

 Appellees decided to arbitrate their claims against Appellants before the 

American Arbitration Association. This decision renders the issues on appeal moot. 

Appellees’ counsel informed Appellants’ counsel of this decision on April 10, 2015 

and suggested proposing to this Court an agreed order dismissing the appeal. 

Appellants’ counsel indicated he would check with his clients, but to date has not 

provided any response to Appellees’ counsel. Based on the foregoing, the Appellees 

did not file a responsive brief to Appellant’s brief, and will, if this Court deems 

necessary, submit a motion to dismiss the appeal based on Appellees’ agreement to 

proceed with arbitration of the claims before the American Arbitration Association. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Kelly M. Crawford 

 Kelly M. Crawford 

 J. Mitchell Little 

 Kelly.Crawford@SolidCounsel.com 

Mitch.Little@SolidCounsel.com 

Counsel for Appellees 

cc: Rogge Dunn, Esq. (via electronic mail) 

Counsel for Appellants

ACCEPTED

05-15-00217-CV

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

4/20/2015 1:10:27 PM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

 FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 4/20/2015 1:10:27 PM LISA MATZ Clerk
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection withthe quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PLC Systems Inc. (the “Company”) forthe period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Mark R.Tauscher, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to his knowledge:

 

(1)  theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| Date:  November 14, 2008 | By:                                   | /s/ Mark R. Tauscher |
|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------|----------------------|
|                          | Mark R. Tauscher                      |
|                          | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                          | (Principal Executive Officer)         |

 

 

In connection withthe quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PLC Systems Inc. (the “Company”) forthe period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, JamesG. Thomasch, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to his knowledge:

 

(1)  theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| Date:  November 14, 2008 | By:                           | /s/ James G. Thomasch |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------|
|                          | James G. Thomasch             |
|                          | Chief Financial Officer       |
|                          | (Principal Financial Officer) |

 

----
#### Lapolla, Appellant, *v.*Davis, Director of Finance, et al., Appellees.

(No. 31790

Decided June 15, 1949.)

*Mr. John W. King, Mr. Henry C. Church*and *Miss-D. Paukne Church,*for appellant.

*Mr. H. Herschel Hunt*and *Mr. Robert D. Huxley,*for appellees.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the-*551reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Stewart and Turner, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

In Re: ALAN VERNON CECIL, a/k/a 

Allen Cecil, a/k/a Alan Cecil,

Debtor.

ALAN VERNON CECIL,  No. 02-1881

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PAUL-MICHAEL SWEENEY,

Defendant-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-01-2318-AW, BK-99-22685)

Argued: April 4, 2003

Decided: April 30, 2003

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and

Terry L. WOOTEN, United States District Judge for the

District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Thomas F. DeCaro, Jr., DECARO & HOWELL, P.C.,

Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellant. Paul-Michael Sweeney,
LINOWES & BLOCHER, L.L.P., Silver Spring, Maryland, for

Appellee. ON BRIEF: Jennifer D. Larkin, LINOWES & BLOCHER,

L.L.P., Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Alan V. Cecil, the debtor in this Chapter 7 bankruptcy case,

received a workers’ compensation award of $24,212.52 during the

pendency of the bankruptcy proceeding. While Cecil listed the workers’ compensation claim as an asset of the estate, the value of which

was not yet known, he received the actual award a little over a month

later. Cecil did not, however, claim the award as exempt from the

estate, as authorized by 11 U.S.C. § 522(b) and Md. Code Ann., Cts.

& Jud. Proc. § 11-504(b)(2), until 17 months after he disclosed the

asset and 16 months after he received the award. The bankruptcy

court allowed Cecil’s exemption, but on the condition that Cecil pay

from the award $2,675, representing a portion of the Chapter 7 trustee’s expenses incurred during the period of delay in pursuing the

award as property of the estate. Cecil appealed the bankruptcy court’s

ruling, and the district court affirmed. We now too affirm. 

Although Cecil’s bankruptcy attorney was on medical leave for the

last four months before he asserted Cecil’s exemption with respect to

the workers’ compensation award, Cecil provided no justification for

his failure to claim the exemption during the first 12 months after he

received the award. After careful review of the record and consideration of the parties’ arguments, we conclude that the bankruptcy court

acted well within its equitable powers in conditioning exemption of

the award on a partial payment of the trustee’s attorneys fees and

costs. See Arnold v. Gill (In re Arnold), 252 BR 778, 789 (B.A.P. 9th

Cir. 2000). Cecil’s claim of exemption, 16 months after he received

2 IN RE: CECIL
the property, came after the trustee undertook, during the period of

delay, reasonable activities in seeking to bring the award into the

estate, as he was statutorily obligated to do on behalf of creditors with

respect to property not claimed as exempt. Accordingly, we affirm the

judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED

IN RE: CECIL 3
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 55799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22483]

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

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, September 13, 2012, 4:45 p.m. EDT.

PLACE: Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave. SW., 
Washington, DC 20237.

SUBJECT: Notice of Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

SUMMARY: The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will be meeting at 
the time and location listed above. At the meeting, the BBG will 
receive and consider a report from the Governance Committee with 
recommendations regarding grantee administrative streamlining, receive 
and consider a progress report from the Strategy and Budget Committee, 
and consider two resolutions honoring employees for their service. The 
BBG will recognize the anniversaries of Agency language services, 
receive a distribution/technology initiatives update, receive a budget 
update, and receive reports from the International Broadcasting Bureau 
Director, the Communications and External Affairs Director, the 
Strategy and Development Director, the VOA Director, the Office of Cuba 
Broadcasting Director, and the Presidents of Radio Free Europe/Radio 
Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks.
    The public may attend this meeting in person at BBG headquarters in 
DC as seating capacity allows. Members of the public seeking to attend 
the meeting in person must register at http://bbgboardmeetingsept2012.eventbrite.com by 10 a.m. (EDT) on September 
12. For more information, please contact BBG Public Affairs at (202) 
203-4400 or by email at pubaff@bbg.gov. This meeting will also be 
available for public observation via streamed webcast, both live and 
on-demand, on the BBG's public Web site at http://www.bbg.gov. The 
public is advised to check the Web site for updated information on the 
starting time of the meeting.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Persons interested in obtaining 
more information should contact Paul Kollmer-Dorsey at (202) 203-4545.

Paul Kollmer-Dorsey,
Deputy General Counsel.
 [FR Doc. 2012-22483 Filed 9-7-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
```