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 Annual Report of Medifast, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Michael S. McDevitt, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  and





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





By:
              /s/ Michael S. McDevittMichael
      S. McDevittChief
      Executive Officer, Chief Financial OfficerMarch
      16, 2009
#### PRATT & WHITNEY COMPANY, The Warner & Swasey Company, Niles-Bement-Pond Company, Defendants-Appellants, v. The LEES-BRADNER COMPANY, Plalntiff-Appellee. The LEES-BRADNER COMPANY, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant, v. PRATT & WHITNEY COMPANY, The Warner & Swasey Company, Niles-Bement-Pond Company, Defendants-Cross-Appellees.

Nos. 8097, 8098.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 9, 1939.

Kwis, Hudson & Kent, of Cleveland, Ohio, for Pratt & Whitney Co. and others.

Hawgood & Van Horn, of Cleveland, Ohio, for Lees-Bradner Co.

Before HICKS and SIMONS, Circuit. Judges.

*1013PER CURIAM.

The parties hereto, having consented to the entry of a consent decree against the defendants herein, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed, as follows:

1. That Letters Patent of the United States granted to William C. Farnum on Gear Cutting Machines No. 1,373,957, being one of the Letters Patent in suit, are good and valid in law.

2. That Letters Patent of the United States granted to the Lees-Bradner Company as assignee of Charles H. Schurr for Gear Grinding Machines No. 1,720,404, being another of the Letters Patent in suit, are good and valid in law.

3. That the plaintiff the Lees-Bradner Company is the sole and exclusive owner ■of the entire right, title and interest in and to each of said Letters Patent Numbers 1,373,957 and 1,720,404.

4. That the defendants, Pratt & Whitney Company, Niles-Bement-Pond Company, and the Warner & Swasey Company, .and each of them, has violated the exclusive rights of the plaintiff thereunder by ■making, using and/or selling Gear Grinding Machines embodying and containing the inventions of Letters Patent to Farnum No. 1,373,957, as set forth in claims 3, 4, 7, 22, and 23 thereof, and embodying and -containing the inventions of said Letters Patent to Schurr No. 1,720,404, as set forth in claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, and *23*thereof, the said devices made and sold by the Defendants Pratt & Whitney Company and/or Niles-Bement-Pond Company being more particularly shown and exhibited by Plaintiff’s Exhibits 4 and 5 and the ■said devices used by the defendant the Warner *&*Swasey Company being more particularly shown and exhibited by Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4.

5. That no accounting for damages or ■profits will be ordered in this cause.

6. That each party will bear costs already paid by it, and that any costs remaining to be paid will be divided equally between the parties.

7. That the decree of The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, be modified to conform herewith, and that such ■decree be made final
#### WESTERN FARMERS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, a Corporation of Anadarko, Oklahoma, Plaintiff, v. Russell J. PAXTON, Mrs. Russell J. Paxton, F. T. Paxton, Mrs. F. T. Paxton, and Hester M. Paxton, Defendants.

No. 36489.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Sept. 27, 1955.

H. C. Ivester, Sayre, Harry C. Hicks, Hollis, for plaintiff in error.

Oden & Oden, Ryan Kerr, Yates & Braddock, Altus, for defendants in error.

DAVISON,' Justice.

Except for the amount of the verdict and judgment and the identity of the land involved and of the defendants, the instant case presents generally the same issues as were in cause number 36485, Western Farmers Electric Cooperative v.

*732Yates, 288 P.2d 723. However, the case at bar does not involve exceptional damage to an isolated field as did the Yates case, supra, and consequentially the verdict was materially less. The testimony of the different witnesses as to the amount of damage varied widely, ranging from amounts considerably below the amount of the judgment to amounts considerably above the same. The clear weight of the evidence, however, amply supported the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court based thereon.

The same reasoning and rule? of law being here controlling, the opinion in said cause number'36485 is adopted as the-opinion herein.

Judgment affirmed.

' JOHNSON, C. J., WILLIAMS, V. C. J., and WELCH; CORN, BLACKBIRD and JACKSON, JJ., concur.

HALLEY, J., dissents.
# C_2008272EN.01003401.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/34

---

Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Euromar di Ganesio Pietro v Commission

(Case T-314/08)

(2008/C 272/62)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Euromar di Ganesio Pietro & C. Snc (Aci Castello, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008.

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c v Commission.

Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c

Commission.

---
IB 

Union Calendar No. 510 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4785 

[Report No. 115–663] 

To prohibit the consolidated audit trail from accepting personally identifying 

information, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 12, 2018 

Mr. HUIZENGA (for himself and Mr. HULTGREN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

MAY 7, 2018 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4785 RH

A BILL 

To prohibit the consolidated audit trail from accepting 

personally identifying information, and for other purposes. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4785 RH

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 ‘‘American Customer 

5 Information Protection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NO ACCEPTANCE OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING IN7 FORMATION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The consolidated audit trail may 

9 not accept personally identifying information. 

10 (b) EXCEPTION FOR LARGE TRADERS.—Subsection 

11 (a) shall not apply to information accepted by the consoli12 dated audit trail in connection with large traders. 

13 (c) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section: 

14 (1) CONSOLIDATED AUDIT TRAIL.—The term 

15 ‘‘consolidated audit trail’’ means the consolidated 

16 audit trail created by the national market system 

17 plan approved pursuant to section 242.613 and sec18 tion 242.608 of title 17, Code of Federal Regula19 tions (or any successor regulation). 

20 (2) LARGE TRADER.—The term ‘‘large trader’’ 

21 has the meaning given that term under section 

22 13(h)(8) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 

23 U.S.C. 78m(h)(8)). 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 4785 RH

1 (3) PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING INFORMA2 TION.—The term ‘‘personally identifying informa3 tion’’ includes— 

4 (A) Social Security numbers; 

5 (B) individual taxpayer identification num6 bers; 

7 (C) other customer identifying information, 

8 when taken alone or together, sufficient to iden9 tify an individual, such as names, addresses, 

10 dates of birth, account numbers; and 

11 (D) any other information the Securities 

12 and Exchange Commission determines could be 

13 defined as personally identifying information. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 510 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4785 

[Report No. 115–663] 

A BILL 

To prohibit the consolidated audit trail from acfor other purposes. cepting personally identifying information, and 

MAY 7, 2018 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
reg on 

Kate Brown, Governor 

December!!, 2015 

Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 

1200 Sixth Avenue 

Mail Code: RA-140 

Seattle, WA 98101 

Department of Environmental Quality 

Agency Headquarters 

811 SW Sixth Avenue 

Portland, OR 97204-1390 

(503) 229-5696 

FAX (503) 229-6124 

TIY 711 

RE: Revision to the Oregon State Implementation Plan conceming the Medford Limited Maintenance 

Plan for CO. 

Dear Dennis: 

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality requests approval of revisions to the Oregon State 

Implementation Plan from the Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, State and Tribal Air Programs Unit of the 

U.S. EPA, Region 10. A copy of the amendments has been submitted for yonr review. 

The Oregon Environmental Quality Commission adopted the revisions to the SIP under OAR 340-200-

0040 on December 9, 2015. The revisions became effective upon filing with the Oregon Secretary of 

State on December 10,2015. DEQ submits these revisions to EPA as part of the SIP and pursuant to 40 

CFR 51.104. With these revisions, the Oregon SIP meets the requirements ofCAA section 110. 

I certify that public notices were published in newspapers of general circulation on August 14, 2015 and 

in the Secretary of State's Oregon Bulletin in September 2015. The notices included a statement that 

adoption of the rules would revise the SIP. I further certifY a public hearing was held on September 21, 

2015 in Medford. 

Thank you for yonr assistance with these revisions to Oregon's SIP. The staff contact for this submittal is 

Dave Nordberg at (503) 229-5519, and Emil Hnidey, SIP Coordinator at (503) 229-5946. 

Sincerely, 

k ;/) 

. ~~ond, Depnt)i' Director 

Enclosures 

CC David Collier, DEQ AQ Planning 

Paul Koprowski, EPA Oregon Operations office 

Justin Spenillo, EPA, Region 10 

Emil Hnidey, DEQ SIP Coordinator 

Robbye Lanier, Lane Regional Air Protection Agency
(OCTOBER 1, 2019–SEPTEMBER 30, 2020)

MARYLAND STATE PROFILE | FISCAL YEAR 2020

17 PROJECTS

$1.5M 

$26.0M ADDITIONAL PRIVATE

INVESTMENTS

LEVERAGED

FISCAL YEAR 2020 INVESTMENT SNAPSHOT

FISCAL YEAR 2020 INVESTMENT PRIORITIES

730 JOBS CREATED 

OR RETAINED

780 STUDENTS AND 

WORKERS TRAINED 

AND EDUCATED

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

$821K

invested in Maryland’s critical 

infrastructure development, including 

broadband, transportation, and 

water/wastewater systems

LEADERSHIP & COMMUNITY CAPACITY

$217K

invested to build the capacity and skills 

of Appalachia’s current and next-generation 

leaders and organizations in Maryland

to advance community and 

economic development

ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES

$50K

invested in entrepreneurial strategies 

to strengthen the economy in 

Appalachian Maryland

TOTAL ARC 

INVESTMENT

READY WORKFORCE

$435K

invested to increase the education, 

knowledge, skills, and health of Maryland’s 

Appalachian residents 

to work and succeed

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION | LEARN MORE: ARC.GOV/MARYLAND

FY 2020 COUNTY ECONOMIC STATUS IN MARYLAND

Levels of

Economic Status

Distressed County

At-Risk County

Transitional County

Competitive County

Attainment County
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION FURNISHED 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 period ended June 30, 2010 (the Report) filed by The Hain Celestial Group,
Inc. (the Company) with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Irwin D. Simon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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

Date: August 30, 2010

/s/ Irwin D. SimonIrwin D. SimonPresident and Chief Executive Officer


A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. and will be retained by The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### Susan Goldfarb, Appellant-Respondent, v Joel Goldfarb, Respondent-Appellant.

— In a matrimonial action in *276which the parties were divorced by judgment entered July 19, 1979, the plaintiff former wife appeals from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), entered March 9, 1990, as denied that branch of her motion which was for an award of counsel fees, and the defendant former husband cross-appeals from so much of the same order and judgment as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law §§ 244 and 244-a, which was for leave to enter a money judgment for arrears in child support, with prejudgment interest.

Ordered that the order and judgment is modified, on the law, by (1) deleting from the first decretal paragraph the words "to the following extent”; and (2) deleting the fourth decretal paragraph thereof and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for an award of counsel fees; as so modified, the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing and determination as to the amount of fees to be awarded to counsel for the plaintiff and entry of an appropriate amended order and judgment; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded costs.

The plaintiff former wife was entitled to a judgment for child support arrears since the defendant former husband failed to obtain a court order permitting him to eliminate his child support payments prior to the accumulation of the arrears *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 244; *Miller v Miller,*160 AD2d 912; *Schelter v Schelter,*159 AD2d 995; *see also, Johnston v Johnston,*115 AD2d 520). Moreover, by awarding prejudgment interest, the Supreme Court concluded that the defendant’s conduct was willful in that he "knowingly, consciously and voluntarily disregarded” his obligation to pay child support (Domestic Relations Law § 244; *see, Gutin v Gutin,*155 AD2d 586).

In light of the fact that the defendant’s conduct was willful, the plaintiff was entitled, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237 (c), to an award of counsel fees *(see, Stang v Stang,*173 AD2d 812; *Riseley v Riseley,*173 AD2d 1103; *Gutin v Gutin, supra).*Therefore, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing and determination as to the amount of fees to be awarded to counsel for the plaintiff. Hooper, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Matter of the Marriage of Sandra E. 

Fountain and Samuel B. Fountain

No. 06-24-00020-CV

Appeal from the 62nd District Court of 

Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

FM20134). Panel consists of Chief Justice 

Stevens and Justices van Cleef and Rambin. 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

Rambin. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed 

for want of prosecution. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellant pay all costs incurred by reason of this appeal.

RENDERED JULY 2, 2024

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
1 Attachment 

Nancy 

 

I have filled in the blanks using review notes. 

 

If you have any question please feel free to call me at the number below. 

Sincerely, 

 

Ken Everett 

Senior Environmental Scientist 

Department of Pesticide Regulation 

Enforcement Branch 

916-324-3897 

Funding-Authority 

Ken Everett 

to: 

Nancy Levin 

08/01/2012 01:52 PM 

Cc: 

Fabiola Estrada 

Hide Details 

From: Ken Everett <keverett@cdpr.ca.gov>

To: Nancy Levin/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Cc: Fabiola Estrada/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

History: This message has been replied to. 

Funding-Personnel-Authority July 27.docx

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Users\nlevin\AppData\Local\Temp\notes5524D1\~web9486.htm 8/15/2012
· DPR funds CACs on an annual basis to conduct inspections and enforcement activities.

1

 

· Funding derives from an assessment on pesticide sales. DPR collects 21 mill (or 2.1 

cents) per dollar, of which approximately 9 mill is designated for CAC pesticide use 

inspection and enforcement activities.

2

In 2006 CDPR and the California Agricultural 

Commission and Sealers Association entered into a Memorandum of Understanding that 

explains the process for distributing funds3. 

· Additional funding was provided for fumigant allowances for Ventura County in 

______.

4

 

· The CACs have conducted _____ field fumigant inspections since the 2008 regulations 

were adopted by DPR. In 2010-2011, CA made 724 field fumigant inspections and 2,130 

structural fumigation inspections statewide. 

5

 

· In addition, CACs must conduct pre-application site evaluation for at least 5% of all 

Notices of Intent to apply restricted material use pesticides.

6

In 2010-2011, CAC’s 

conducted ___% of the pre-application inspections 

· Both DPR and CAC enforcement authority is derived from State law and regulation.

7

 

1

????

2

3 CCR Section 6386. Established Rate; CFAC Sections 12841 , 12841.3. 

3

Disbursment of Residual Mill Assessment Funds To Enhance Local Pesticide Enforcement Programs, May 2006, 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/exec/county/documents/DISBURSMENT_OF_RESIDUAL_MILL_ASSESSMENT_FUND

S_TO_ENHANCE.pdf

4

3 CCR Section 6393. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/legbills/calcode/020302.htm#a6393

5

See California Statewide Pesticide Regulatory Activities Summary Between July 2010 and June 2011, California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation, http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/enforce/prasr/10-11prasr.pdf

6

3 CCR 6436 

7 CFAC 14004, Also See Section 2281; 3CCR Sections 6140 and 6128

Comment [c1]: FAC 12841 

Comment [c2]: July 2008 

Comment [c3]: 3,154 

Comment [c4]: Jan 1, 2008 

Comment [c5]: A total of 7,941
Table of Contents

Exhibit 4.17

[THE COCA-COLA COMPANY LETTERHEAD]

June 3, 2009

Coca-Cola FEMSA de Costa Rica, S.A. 
Republic of Costa Rica

Dear Sirs:

In regards to the Bottler Agreement in force and effect since October 1, 2002 (the Agreement) entered into between you and The Coca-Cola Company (the Company), we inform you that a new bottler agreement is in the final stages
of discussion and approval among the parties, which we estimate will be executed towards the middle of July 2009, hereby the Agreement is temporarily extended from March 31, 2009 until:

July 31, 2009

With the exception of said extension, all the terms and conditions of the Agreement will continue to be fully valid until the expiration of said additional term, and once the extension expires, the Bottler will no longer have the right to claim a
tacit renewal of the aforementioned Agreement.

| |                      
| | ---------------------
| | Sincerely,           
| | THE COCA-COLA COMPANY



| |                          
| | -------------------------
| | /s/                      
| |                          
| | Authorized Representative

Accepted by:
COCA-COLA FEMSA DE COSTA RICA, S.A.

|                          | 
|------------------------- | 
|/s/                       | 
|                          | 
|Authorized Representative | 

1

---
# Johnson - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Big Sandy Area Development District Executive Director Eric Ratliff Email &#x65;&#114;&#x69;&#x63;&#46;&#x72;&#97;t&#x6c;&#105;f&#x66;&#64;B&#x69;&#103;S&#x61;&#110;&#x64;&#x79;&#46;&#x6f;&#x72;&#103;The post Big Sandy Area Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 9, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 1115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-00235]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4663-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]


Kentucky; Amendment No. 14 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4663-DR), dated July 29, 2022, 
and related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on December 15, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, E. Craig Levy, 
Sr., of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer 
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of John E. Brogan as Federal 
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2024-00235 Filed 1-8-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P