alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of ICT Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John J. Brennan, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |  |  |                                                                
|-------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|               |  | 
|March 14, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/    JOHN J. BRENNAN                                         
|               |  |  |  | John J. Brennan Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 458

To protect the opening of the 1995 season for the hunting of migratory

birds, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 22, 1995

Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself and Mr. HARKIN) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

A BILL

To protect the opening of the 1995 season for the hunting

of migratory birds, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING SEASON.

4 Notwithstanding a law that imposes a moratorium on

5 the issuance of regulations, or any other law (except a law

6 that specifically refers to this Act), that is in effect or

7 comes into effect on or after the date of enactment of this

8 Act, the Secretary of the Interior may issue such regula9 tions as are appropriate under section 3 of the Migratory

10 Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 704) to establish the frame-
2

•S 458 IS

1 work for and to open the migratory bird hunting season

2 for 1995.

Æ
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.33

                                  AMENDMENT TO

                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     AMENDMENT,  effective as of the 30th day of March,  2001 to the  Employment
Agreement  dated as of July 25,  1997 and  amended as of  December 8, 2000 among
Donna Karan  International  Inc. (the "Company"),  a Delaware  corporation,  The
Donna  Karan  Company  ("DKCo."),  a New  York  partnership  and  John  D.  Idol
("Executive").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

     WHEREAS, the Company,  DKCo. and the Executive have previously entered into
the Employment Agreement; and

     WHEREAS, the Company, DKCo. and the Executive desire to further amend the
Employment Agreement.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereto agree
as follows:

     1. Section 10(b) of the Employment Agreement is hereby clarified, effective
as of March 30, 2001, by adding the following language at the end thereof:

          "For purposes of Section 10(b)(ii), a vote cast by the
          Executive in his capacity as a member of the Board (whether
          in favor of or against a proposal put before the Board for a
          vote) shall not constitute a corporate action initiated or
          recommended by the Executive."

     2. Agreement Otherwise Unchanged. The Employment Agreement, as so amended,
shall remain in full force and effect.

     3. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original, but both of which together shall constitute
the same agreement.

                  [remainder of page intentionally left blank]



                                     Page 1
<PAGE>



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Amendment as of the
date first written above.

                                            DONNA KARAN INTERNATIONAL INC.


                                            By:___________________________
                                               Name:
                                               Title:

                                            THE DONNA KARAN COMPANY

                                            By: DONNA KARAN INTERNATIONAL INC.,
                                                GENERAL PARTNER


                                            By:___________________________
                                               Name:
                                               Title:

                                            EXECUTIVE


                                            ------------------------------
                                               John D. Idol




                                     Page 2
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6387** 

CALVIN LYNDALE GADDY, a/k/a Calvin L. Gaddy , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

WARDEN OF LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Defendant

– Appellee , and

SOUTH CAROLINA,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. G. Ross Anderson, Jr

. , Senior District Judge. ( 8:15

- cv
- 03706

- JFA )

Submitted : May 18 , 2016 Decided: May 23, 2016

Before SHEDD , DIAZ , and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Calvin Lyndale Gaddy , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Calvin Lyndale Gaddy seeks to appeal the d istrict court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate
judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Gadd y that failure to file timely , specific objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
order based upon the recommendation.
The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate
judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review
of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have
been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v.

Collins , 76 6 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Gaddy has waived appellate
review by fail ing to file specific objections after receiving
proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the a ppeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
1

Hutson, Nick

From: Hutson, Nick

Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 12:49 PM

To: 'Frey, Nathan J.'

Cc: Szabo, Aaron; Grossman, Andrea; Culligan, Kevin; Fruh, Steve; CurryBrown, Amanda

Subject: 111(b) Preamble - clean and RLSO and RIA 

Attachments: 111b preamble_FINAL_080115_clean.docx; 111b preamble_RLSO_compare_080115_to_

050715.docx; EO 12866_111(b) New-Mods 2060-AQ91 RIA Final_08012015.docx

Nathan – 

Attached are 3 files: 

1. The final 111(b) preamble and rule (clean version) 

2. A RLSO that compares this version against the version that was first submitted on 05/07/15 

3. The final 111(b) RIA 

If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. 

Thanks, 

Nick 

Nick Hutson, PhD 

Energy Strategies Group 

Office of Air & Radiation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

tel: +1 919 541 2968 

email: hutson.nick@epa.gov
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7779
RICHARD T. AULDRIDGE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD F. MOATS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA97-980-CCB) Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 20, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard T. Auldridge, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Celia Anderson Davis, O FFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Auldridge v. Moats , No. CA-97-980-CCB (D. Md. Oct. 29, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
1

Memo 

To: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799 

From: Joseph McDonald, U.S. EPA-OTAQ-ASD 

CC: Ed Nam, U.S. EPA-OTAQ-ASD 

Date: October 6, 2010 

Re: SAE-AEI Article on Fiat Multiair System 

A hard copy of the June, 209 SAE Automotive Engineering International article entitled “Fiat Multiair” is 

available within EPA’s Docket Center. 

The article has been copyrighted and is not available within the electronic docket. Parties that wish to 

view a hard copy of this document can do so at the at the EPA Docket Center: Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, 

Washington DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-

1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
Exhibit32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Reportof Salomon Smith Barney Mid-West Futures Fund L.P. II (the"Partnership") on Form 10-K for the yearending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr., Chief Financial Officer and Director ofCitigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Partnership.

/s/ Daniel R. McAuliffe,Jr.

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

Daniel R. McAuliffe,Jr. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC Chief Financial Officer andDirector

March 31,2005

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

Date

----
#### Maurice MINCHEN, Appellant, v. R. H. MURRAH, Sr., et al., Appellees.

No. 5148.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

Nov. 23, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 14, 1955.

Swearingen & Bledsoe,.Marfa, for appellant.

H. O. Metcalfe, William H. Earney, Mar-fa, for appellees.

HAMILTON, Chief Justice.

In the court below a suit was filed by R. H. Murrah, Sr., and R. H. Murrah, Jr., against Maurice Minchen, alleging in substance that Maurice Minchen had wrongfully procured the issuance of a temporary restraining order against them in cause No. 2678, in the District Court of Brewster County, Texas, in which final judgment was had, and are suing for damages resulting from the wrongful issuance of said injunction.

Both plaintiffs and ¡defendant filed motion for. summary judgment. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was-overruled, and the court,in its.order stated that plaintiffs’ motion was also overruled. However, the order, did go ahead and grant a summary judgment to the effect that all- issues pertaining to matters as to the issuance of a temporary restraining order' have been adjudicated and should not be re-litigated, and that there remained to be tried only the issue pertaining to damages, if any, accruing and arising between the time of the issuance of.said temporary restraining order and its dissolution. Defendant duly excepted and has appealed from said summary judgment. .

The appellees (plaintiffs below) filed a motion to dismiss the appeal oh the ground that the order entered by the court below is not a final judgment, and is not an ap-pealable judgment.. It is our opinion that the appellees are correct.

Rule 166-A, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the very procedure that was had here. Paragraph (a) of said Rule provides that either party may move for summary judgment in his favor for all or any part of his caúsfe of action, and further provides that a summary judgment, interlocutory in character, may be entered on the issue of liability alone, although there is a genuine issue as to the matter of damages'. Subsection (d) of said Rule provides that where a case is not fully adjudicated, on such motion the court may specify those facts that appear without substantial controversy, and may direct such further proceedings in the action as are just. Of course such an order as entered in the case below is an interlocutory order and no appeal lies from an interlocutory order unless provided by law. Rule 166-A does not provide for any such appeal.

In the notes of Federal Advisory Committee on amended Rule 56, Federal, page 481, V.A.T.R.C.P., there is a discussion as to what is meant by partial summary judg*373ment and whether or not it is appealable. Such - discussion and the cases there cited seem to hold that a summary judgment of the character we have, before us was not a final judgment, and is not appealable.

We therefore grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.
Exhibit 21


                         THERMO BIOANALYSIS CORPORATION

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant


   At February 28, 1997, the Registrant owned the following companies:


                                                                  Registrant's
                                           State of Jurisdiction      % of
   Name                                       or Incorporation      Ownership
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   DYNEX Technologies (Asia) Inc.                  Delaware            100

   DYNEX Technologies Inc.                         Virginia            100

   Thermo BioAnalysis GmbH                          Germany            100

        Dynatech Deutschland GmbH                   Germany            100

        Thermo LabSystems Vertriebs GmbH           Germany             100

   Dynatech Labratories spol. s.r.o.            Czech Republic         100

   Thermo BioAnalysis (Guernsey) Ltd.           Channel Islands        100

   Thermo BioAnalysis Holding, Limited              England            100

        Thermo LabSystems Limited                   England            100

        Thermo BioAnalysis Limited                  England            100

        Thermo Fast U.K. Limited                    England            100

        Dynex Technologies Limited                  England            100

   Thermo BioAnalysis S.A.                          France             100

        Thermo LabSystems S.A.R.L.                  France             100

   Thermo LabSystems Inc.                        Massachusetts         100

   Thermo LabSystems (Australia) Pty Limited       Australia           100
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.33
Noble Corporation
Summary of Director Compensation
Annual Retainer. Noble Corporation plc, a company organized under the laws of England and Wales, (the “Company”) pays each of its non-employee directors an annual retainer of $50,000. Under the Noble Corporation Equity Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors, non-employee directors may elect to receive up to all of the retainer in shares. The number of shares to be issued under the plan in any particular quarter is generally determined using the average of the daily closing prices of the shares for the last 15 consecutive trading days of the previous quarter. No options are issuable under the plan, and there is no “exercise price” applicable to shares delivered under the plan.
Board Meeting Fees. In addition, the Company pays its non-employee directors a Board meeting fee of $2,500. The Company pays each member of its committees a committee meeting fee of $2,500 per meeting. The Company also reimburses directors for travel, lodging and related expenses they may incur in attending Board and committee meetings, and related activities in connection with the duties as director.
Committee Fees. The chair of the audit committee and the compensation committee receives an annual retainer of $25,000, and the chair of each other standing Board committee receives an annual retainer of $15,000. The lead director also receives an annual fee of $25,000.
Equity Compensation. Under the Noble Corporation 1992 Nonqualified Stock Option and Restricted Share Plan for Nonemployee Directors (the “1992 Plan”) each annually-determined award of a variable number of restricted shares or unrestricted shares is made on a date selected by the Board, or if no such date is selected by the Board, the date on which the Board action approving such award is taken. Any future award of restricted shares will be evidenced by a written agreement that will include such terms and conditions not inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the 1992 Plan as the Board considers appropriate in each case.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ADVANCE
PARADIGM, INC. FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          50,111
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  187,492
<ALLOWANCES>                                       368
<INVENTORY>                                      5,965
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               246,429
<PP&E>                                          46,298
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,679
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 387,935
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          232,384
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           215
<OTHER-SE>                                      99,293
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   387,935
<SALES>                                      1,968,406
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,968,406
<CGS>                                        1,909,461
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,909,461
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,656
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,136
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 33,153
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,598
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,555
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,555
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.85


</TABLE>
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 InstaCare Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Keith Berman, Principal Executive 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, 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.   Date: September 29, 2008  /s/ Keith Berman Keith Berman, Principal Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-05-300-CV

JAMES M. HANNERS	APPELLANT

	V.

MELANIE DAVIES	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM THE 231ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered appellant’s “Motion For Voluntary Dismissal Of Appeal.”  It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

	Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D: GARDNER, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DELIVERED: March 2, 2006
UNITED STATES
                      SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                            Washington, D.C. 20549

                                   FORM 8-K
                                CURRENT REPORT
  Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
                      Date of Report November 11, 1998

                            SBI Communications, Inc
           (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
 ..........................................................................

         Delaware                  0-28416             58-1700840
(State or other jurisdiction     (Commission          (IRS Employer
      of incorporation)           File Number)        Identification)

                     P.O. Box 729 - Leesburg, Georgia 31763
             (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

                                (912) 759-9176
              Registrant's telephone number, including area code
 ..........................................................................

   The company's board of directors accepted the resignation of Mr. Mel Ray as
   director as of September 10, 1998