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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 539

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a tax exemption

for health risk pools.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 10 (legislative day, MARCH 6), 1995

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

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

a tax exemption for health risk pools.

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

3 That (a) subsection (c) of section 501 of the Internal Rev4 enue Code of 1986 (relating to list of exempt organiza5 tions) is amended by adding at the end thereof the follow6 ing new paragraph:

7 ‘‘(26) Any corporation, association, or similar

8 legal entity which is created by any State or political

9 subdivision thereof to establish a risk pool to provide

10 health insurance coverage to any person unable to
2

•S 539 IS

1 obtain health insurance coverage in the private in2 surance market because of health conditions and no

3 part of the net earnings of which inures to the

4 benefit of any private shareholder, member, or indi5 vidual.’’

6 (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall

7 apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1989.

Æ
January 4, 2015

Mr. John Appello

454 Lewandowski

Lyndhurst, NJ 07071

Dear Mr. Appello :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption. It

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n ot Process Your Request

We received your October 27, 2015

, exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA− 2015

− 5038

, but we are unable to process your request any further as a result of a discrepancy in your

petition

. The name of the petitioner is inconsistent in your petition. For us to consider the

request any further, you must clarify the name of the petitioner and resubmi t a revise d petition

to your docket

.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions

, you may call the 333 Information Line at (202) 267

– 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Divisio n
<PAGE>



                                                                  Exhibit 99.1




    CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
          RELATING TO A PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS


      I, Marc D. Olin, Chief Executive Officer, and I, Joseph J. Whang, Chief
Financial Officer, of Printcafe Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation, hereby
certify that:

      (a) The Company's periodic report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2002 (the "Form 10-Q"), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

      (b) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


                                      * * *


CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                     CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


/s/ Marc D. Olin                            /s/Joseph J. Whang
------------------------------            ----------------------------
Marc D. Olin                              Joseph J. Whang

Date: August 14, 2002                     Date: August 14, 2002
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

*CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MedicalCV, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended January 31, 2005, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, MarcP. Flores, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.               the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

 
| Dated:  March 17, 2005 |   | By:                                   | /s/ Marc P. Flores |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------------------|--------|
|                        |   | Marc P. Flores                        |
|                        |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
----

|   | (1) | the      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 29, 2008      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as      applicable, 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 operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                   |                      |                                                |
|----------------------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                   | APPLETON      PAPERS INC. |
|                                   |                      |                                                |
| Dated:  August      11, 2008 |                      |        /s Mark R. Richards                     |
|                                   | Name:                     | Mark      R. Richards                               |
|                                   | Title:                    | Chairman,      President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer |

----

----
<PAGE>

                        INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

Board of Directors
Maxim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 
333-11375) on Form S-8 of Maxim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated 
November 27,1996, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Maxim 
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and subsidiary (a development stage company) as of 
September 30,1996 and 1995, and the related consolidated statements of 
operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the 
years in the three-year period ended September 30,1996, and from the period 
from inception (October 23, 1989) through September 30, 1996, which report 
appears in the September 30,1996 annual report on Form 10-K of Maxim 
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.



/s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

San Diego, California
December 23, 1996


                                      26
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 10.52

Letter of Understanding, dated December 15, 1999, from ICG Communications, Inc.,
 regarding Section 4 of the Employment Agreement between ICG Communications,
 Inc. and Douglas I. Falk.

<PAGE>

                                                   December 15, 1999



Douglas Falk
161 Inverness Drive West
Englewood, Colorado 80112

Dear Doug:

         This letter evidences our understanding that, if the Company terminates
your employment pursuant to Section 4 of the Employment Agreement between you
and the Company dated June 1, 1999, all options to purchase shares of the
Company that have been granted to you pursuant to the Company's Stock Option
Plans, but not yet vested, will immediately vest on the date of such termination
and you will be entitled to exercise all options held by you for a period of six
months after the date of termination in accordance with the plans and agreements
relating to such options.

                                                        ICG COMMUNICATIONS, INC.



                                                        By:  /s/ Don Teague
                                                             -------------------
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 6.3


                   AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         This Amendment is made as of this 2nd day of September, 1997 between
Pennsylvania Physicians Care Service Corp., a Pennsylvania corporation
("Employer") and Richard A. Felice ("Executive").

                                   Background

         Pursuant to an Executive Employment Agreement dated September 3, 1996
(the "Employment Agreement"), Executive has been employed by Employer since
September 3, 1996.

         Employer and Executive desire to amend the terms of the Employment
Agreement.

                                    Agreement

         In consideration of the foregoing, which is incorporated herein by
reference, and of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties, intending
to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:

         1. Effective September 3, 1997, Executive's Annual Salary pursuant to
Section 4(a) of the Employment Agreement shall be increased from $200,000 to
$235,000 per year ("Annual Salary").

         2. Effective September 3, 1997, Executive's eligibility for an annual
bonus pursuant to Section 4(d) of the Employment Agreement shall be increased
from an amount of up to fifteen percent (15%) of the Annual Salary to an amount
of up to twenty percent (20%) of the Annual Salary.

         3. All other terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect and shall be deemed unmodified and unchanged by reason of this
Agreement.

         4. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, without giving effect to the conflict of law principles thereof.

         5. This Agreement may be executed by each party upon a separate copy,
and in such case, one counterpart of this Agreement shall consist of enough of
such copies to reflect the signature of all parties. This Agreement may be
executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original and
each of which shall constitute one and the same agreement.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 6.3


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be
executed and delivered as of the date first written above.


                                          PENNSYLVANIA PHYSICIANS
                                          CARE SERVICE CORP.


                                     By:  /S/ Gary C. Brown
                                          ---------------------------------
                                          Gary C. Brown, Chairman of Board


                                          /S/ Richard A. Felice
                                          ---------------------------------
                                          Richard A. Felice

                                        2
#### Leo Daniel LUTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 33632.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 2, 1961.

James H. Martin, Dallas (on appeal only) for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., and James K. Allen, Jerome V. Chamberlain, Jr., Frank W. Watts, George R. Milner, Jr., and Phil Burleson, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, death.

The witness Bryant testified that he and his wife were engaged in the operation of a grocery store on the night in question when appellant, in company with another man, entered the store holding handkerchiefs to their faces, brandishing pistols, and demanded the money from the cash register. Bryant testified that instead of complying he struck the nearest robber but appellant, who was farthest from him, shot him and later shot his wife, and then *854fled. It was shown that the bullet wound inflicted upon Bryant’s wife was fatal and that during- the course of the scuffle between Bryant and appellant’s companion appellant had dropped his handkerchief from his face and the identification was positive.

Bryant’s testimony was corroborated by the witness Ince who was present in the store at the time.

Appellant was shown to have collided with a truck near the scene of the robbery within minutes thereafter and was removed from the wreckage of his automobile in which a pistol, which had been fired, was found.

Appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in his own behalf.

We shall discuss the contentions presented by the various bills of exception.

The first bill of exception complains that the court erred in excusing certain jurors who had conscientious scruples against the infliction of the death penalty. We have carefully pursued the examination of each of them and find that all of them were subject to the challenge made.

Bill of exception No. 2 as qualified by the court reflects that after the court had received the verdict of the jury and had discharged them the attorney for appellant requested that the court hold the jury together “in connection with some motion he sought to urge after verdict.” The nature of the motion is not shown, and we find no error reflected by the bill.

Bill of exception No. 3 relates to a motion to declare a mistrial based upon the contention that each juror was not sworn individually upon his selection. As qualified, the bill reflects that each juror was in fact sworn upon his selection.

Bill of exception No. 4 complains that in his argument the prosecutor said, “the type of man the evidence shows this defendant to be,” and this constituted a reference to appellant’s failure to testify. The court certifies that no such objection was made at the time, and we have concluded that, if made, it would have been untenable.

Because of the extreme penalty, we have examined the record with great care, but find nothing further to discuss that would in any way add to the jurisprudence of this state or solve any issues in the case.

Finding the evidence sufficient to support the verdict and no reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
Reactive 

### SolidsWhose 

### Threshold Planning

### Quantities Should Be Less

### Than 10,000 Pounds

The Agency 

### has derermined that certain solid chemicals, because they 

### are highly reactive with

### air 

### or water, or explosive, aremore likely 

### thanother solids to be dispersed into 

### the air. Some 

### react with 

### air

### or water to form 

### an extremely toxic gas. These chemicals should not be 

### assigned 10,000-pound 

### threshold 

### planning quantities 

### regardless 

### of the form 

### inwhich they are

### used or stored. 

### The Agency 

### has identified 14

### highly and rapidly 

### reactive 

### solids from 

### the list 

### ofhazardous substances. 

### These highly 

### reactive 

### solids 

### are listed below 

### aLong with their 

### threshold planning quantities 

### and the 

### reasons 

### why these 

### threshold planning quantities 

### should not be 

### raised to 10,000pounds.c al m 3 .- A 0 X al OUL u 

## .- Q EE> om- 

# " 5 '; aJ

UI E 

### 254:

0 

## .- 

# - C UI Ln Pam4 

# -
m m '- ouum 

## E22$
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, W.
Gray Hudkins, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of PC
Group, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as hereby
amended, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual
Report on Form 10-K/A, as hereby amended,  fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of PC Group,
Inc.





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





Dated:  May
      10, 2010
            /s/
      W. Gray HudkinsW.
      Gray Hudkins, President andChief
      Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2       Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc. & Subsidiaries Certification Of Chief Financial 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 annual report of Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, Ted R. Sharp 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 the best of his knowledge:  (1) The annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  Date: April 17, 2007  /s/ Ted R. Sharp Ted R. Sharp Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 99.2

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

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of WellPoint Health Networks Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David C. Colby, 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, 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/DAVID C. COLBYDavid C. Colby Chief Financial OfficerMarch 26, 2003 | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                                      | 

---

QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6642

DARRYL ORVETT PAYNE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-2065-2) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: August 4, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darryl Orvett Payne, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Darryl O. Payne seeks to appeal the district court’s orderdismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Payne’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).The district court’s order was entered on the docket on February 9, 2000. Payne’s notice of appeal was filed on May 5, 2000. Because Payne failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny his pendingmotion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-40355 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus NELSON LEWIS PETERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:98-CR-40-2

- - - - - - - - - - November 18, 1999 Before POLITZ, DAVIS, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Nelson Lewis Peterson has moved for leave to withdraw and filed a motion and brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Peterson has not filed a response to the instant motion. Our independent review of the motion, brief, and record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
Exhibit
23(b)  CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 33360975) and Form S-8 (File Nos,
2-91950, 2-93578, 33-18278, 33-29014, 33-39215, 333-47268, 33-56420, 33-53303,
333-51073, 333-93803 and 333- 93805) of Mandalay Resort Group of our report
dated January 11, 2002 relating to the financial statements of the Elgin
Riverboat Resort  Riverboat Casino, which appears in this Form 10-K/A of
Mandalay Resort Group for the year ended January 31, 2001.  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP   Chicago, Illinois March 22, 2002