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 amended quarterly Report of Tranquility, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the Report), I, Dominick Pope, Chief Executive 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  October 25, 2010 /s/Dominick Pope
     Chief Executive Officer
IIB 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2117 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 29, 2012 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions 

AN ACT 

To prohibit the Department of Education from overreaching 

into academic affairs and program eligibility under title 

IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. 

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2117 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Academic 

3 Freedom in Higher Education Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REGULATIONS RELATING TO STATE AU5 THORIZATION AND DEFINING CREDIT HOUR. 

6 (a) REGULATIONS REPEALED.— 

7 (1) REPEAL.—The following regulations (in8 cluding any supplement or revision to such regula9 tions) are repealed and shall have no legal effect: 

10 (A) STATE AUTHORIZATION.—Sections 

11 600.4(a)(3), 600.5(a)(4), 600.6(a)(3), 600.9, 

12 and 668.43(b) of title 34, Code of Federal Reg13 ulations (relating to State authorization), as 

14 added or amended by the final regulations pub15 lished by the Department of Education in the 

16 Federal Register on October 29, 2010 (75 Fed. 

17 Reg. 66832 et seq.). 

18 (B) DEFINITION OF CREDIT HOUR.—The 

19 definition of the term ‘‘credit hour’’ in section 

20 600.2 of title 34, Code of Federal Regulations, 

21 as added by the final regulations published by 

22 the Department of Education in the Federal 

23 Register on October 29, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 

24 66946), and clauses (i)(A), (ii), and (iii) of sub25 section (k)(2) of section 668.8 of such title, as 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 2117 RFS 

1 amended by such final regulations (75 Fed. 

2 Reg. 66949 et seq.). 

3 (2) EFFECT OF REPEAL.—To the extent that 

4 regulations repealed by paragraph (1) amended reg5 ulations that were in effect on June 30, 2011, the 

6 provisions of the regulations that were in effect on 

7 June 30, 2011, and were so amended are restored 

8 and revived as if the regulations repealed by para9 graph (1) had not taken effect. 

10 (b) REGULATIONS DEFINING CREDIT HOUR PROHIB11 ITED.—The Secretary of Education shall not promulgate 

12 or enforce any regulation or rule that defines the term 

13 ‘‘credit hour’’ for any purpose under the Higher Edu14 cation Act of 1965 on or after the date of enactment of 

15 this section. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 28, 

2012. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL D. MILLER,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 21

- 30230

D.C. No. 2:18

- cr

- 00034

- TOR

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 15, 2022 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST , Circuit Judges.

Michael D. Miller appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion

for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion, see United

States v. Kelle r , 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021), and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 27 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 30230

Miller contends that the district court abused its discretion because it

incorrectly concluded that he would be at equal risk from COVID

- 19 if he were

released

, gave insufficient weight to the health ri sks created by his incarceration

,

and improperly considered his rehabilitation separately from the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factors. The record does not support Miller’s claims. The district court

correctly observed that Miller’s medical conditions would exist even outside of

prison and that COVID

- 19 continues to spread within the community

. Moreover,

it considered the risks posted by Miller’s particular health conditions. It did not

abuse its discretion in concluding that , because Miller’s health conditions were

stable and being monitored and treated, he had previously recovered from COVID

19, and he had received two doses of the vaccine, he had not shown extraordinary

and com pelling reasons for compassionate release. See United States v. Robertson

,

895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (district court abuses its discretion only if its

decision is illogical, implausible, or without support in the record). Moreover, the

court co nsidered Miller’s rehabilitative efforts and reasonably concluded that

,

though his efforts were commendable, they did not support compassionate release

given the nature and circumstances of his offense and significant criminal history.

See Keller , 2 F.4th 1284.

AFFIRMED.
### SERVED: 

## JUNE 11, 2012

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC 

### LISA GAMACHE-WORTMAN FAA DOCKETNO. CPIOAL0005 (Civil Penalty Case) DMS FAA-2010-1081
HEARING NOTICE 

### lu/Z jlJN 12 P 1: 

### LIB

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered on August 14, 15 and 16,2012, at the United States District Court, Western District ofWashington, Courtroom 18-206 B, 700 Stewart Street, Seattle, WA 98101. 1 Hearings will commence at 9:00a.m. and conclude at 4:30p.m. each day. The parties should vacate the courthouse on or before 5:00p.m. each day.

Attachment

- Service List-,,_

1 The parties should confmn the courtroom with the Clerk's Office on the day ofthe hearing. 

### 1FAADocketNo. CP10AL0005 (Civil Penalty Action) SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WI000 1

Lisa Gamache-Wortman, 

### Respondent P.O. Box 12793 Olympia, WA 98508-2793 ONE COPY

Kyle E. Lomazow, 

### Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, W A 98057 TEL: 425-227-1847 FAJ(: 425-227-1007 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,

### Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S;E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590**·~** TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAJ(: 202-366-7536

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service inperson orby e:x.1>edited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., WilburWrightBuilding-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Exhibit 10-51
 TeleCommunication Systems
Deferred Compensation Plan
  ARTICLE I
PURPOSE AND EFFECTIVE DATE
  ARTICLE II
DEFINITIONS
  Account e.g
 Administrative Committee
 Base Salary
  1




---



##### 



Base Salary Deferral
 Beneficiary
 Board.
 Bonus Compensation
 Change of Control.
 Code
 Commissions
 Company
 Deferral Agreement
 Deferral Period
 Deferred Amount
 Designee
 Disability
 Discretionary Contribution
  2




---



##### 



Earnings.
 Eligible Compensation
 ERISA
 Form of Payment
 Hardship Withdrawal
 Hypothetical Investment Benchmark
 Incentive Compensation
 Incentive Compensation Deferral
 Modification Agreement
 Participant
 Plan Committee
 Plan Year
  3




---



##### 



TeleCommunication Systems Deferred Compensation Plan Committee
 Separation from Service
 Specified Employee
 Valuation Date.
 ARTICLE III
ADMINISTRATION
 TeleCommunication Systems Deferred Compensation Plan Committee and
Administrative Committee Duties
    4




---



##### 



Claim Procedure
  5




---



##### 



ARTICLE IV
PARTICIPATION AND DEFERRAL AGREEMENTS
 Participation
 Contents and Timing of Deferral Agreements
      Modification or Revocation of Election by Participant
    6




---



##### 



Employer Discretionary Contributions
     ARTICLE V
DEFERRED COMPENSATION ACCOUNTS
 Maintenance of Accounts
 Hypothetical Investment Benchmarks
  7




---



##### 



Vesting
       ARTICLE VI
BENEFITS AND DISTRIBUTIONS
 Time and Form of Payment
 Separation from Service Distributions
 In-Service and Specified Date Distributions
  8




---



##### 



Delay for Specified Employees
 Distributions in the Event of Death or Disability
 Hardship Withdrawals
 Withholding of Taxes
 ARTICLE VII
BENEFICIARY DESIGNATION
 Beneficiary Designation
 No Beneficiary Designation
  9




---



##### 



ARTICLE VII
AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION OF PLAN
 Amendment and Interpretation
 Companys Right to Terminate
 ARTICLE IX
MISCELLANEOUS
 Unfunded Plan
 Nonassignability
  10
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1627

_____________________________ A NTONIO R ICHARDSON , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court f or Leon County

. Angela C. Dempsey , Judge

. March 5, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
M AKAR , W INOKUR , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9 .331

.

_____________________________2 Antonio Richardson, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley B

. Moody , Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6494** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JAMES L. PETTUS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis trict of Virginia , at Richmond
. Henry E. Hudson , District Judge. ( 3:07

- cr - 00009

- HEH

- 1 )

Submitted : June 15, 2010 Decided: July 13, 2010

Before MOTZ, AGEE , and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.

James L. Pettus , Appellant Pro Se. Olivia N. Hawkins, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James L. Pettus appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to alter or amend a judgment. We affirm. Pettus’s motion to alter or amend was filed in response to the district court’s partial grant of his motion for a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). The district court awarde d Pettus a two

- level reduction in his total offense level pursuant to Amendment 706 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual and reduced Pettus’s sentence from 180 months imprisonment to 154 months. Pettus claimed in his motion to alter or amend that he should have been sentenced at the low end of the revised Guidelines range. On appeal, he argues that he was entitled to a full resentencing under United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 245 (2007).
In United States v. Goodwyn , 596 F.3d 233, 235 (4th Cir. 2010), we concluded that a district court is without jurisdiction to entertain a motion to alter or amend a judgment granting or denying relief on a § 3582(c) motion unless the motion to alter or amend was made to correct “an arithmetical, technical, or other clear error.” Because Pettus challenges the merits of the district court’s decision in his motion to alter3 or amend, we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion. * We therefore affirm the judgment of the district

c ourt. 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.
AFFIRMED

* Our decision to affirm is also supported by the Supreme Court’s recent holding that the remedial aspect of Booker does not make the Sentencing Guidelines advisory in a § 3582(c) proceeding. Dillon v. United States , 2010 WL 2400109 (U.S. June 17, 2010) (No. 09

- 6338); see also United States v. Dunphy , 551 F.3d 2 47, 251

- 52 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 129 S. Ct. 2401 (2009) (holding same).
## MARYLAN D DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 1800 Washington Boulevard -Baltimore MD 21230 

# MDE 410-537-3000 - 1-800-633-6101 Martin O'Malley Shari T. Wilson Governor Secretary Anthony G. Brown Robert M. Summers, Ph.D. Lieutenant Governor Deputy Secretary April 22, 2009 Mr. Shawn M. Garvin Regional Administrator (3RAOO) US Environmental Protection Agency Region III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia PA 19103-2029 Dear Mr. Garvin: The purpose ofthis letter is to submit the enclosed State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision # 10-05 concerning adoption of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for flat wood paneling coatings. This SIP Revision includes amendments to Regulation .32 and new Regulation .33 under COMAR 26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes. The Notice of Proposed Action for this SIP Revision was published in the Maryland Register on December 18, 2009. A public hearing was held on January 21 , 2010. The action was adopted on March 21 , 2010. The Notice of Final Action was published on April 9, 2010 and the amendments and new regulation became effective on April 19, 2010. All administrative procedures were properly followed throughout the adoption process. If you have any questions concerning this SIP submittal , please feel free to call me at (410) 537­ 3084 or Mr. George (Tad) S. Aburn, Jr. , Director of the Air and Radiation Management Administration, at (410) 537-3255.

Shari T. Wilson Secretary STW:dhr Enclosures

Recycled Paper www.mde.Sl3te.md LIS TTY Users 1-800-735-2258 Via Maryland Relay Service
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6713** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ZEB ARTIS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Henry E. Hudson , District Judge. ( 3:06

- cr - 00304

- HEH

- 1 )

Submitted : June 14, 2012 Decided: June 20, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Zeb Artis , Appellant Pro Se. Roderick Charles Young, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Zeb Artis appeals the district court ’ s order denying his 18 U.S.C
. § 3582 (2006) motion for a sentence reduction . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. United States v. Artis , No. 3:06

- cr - 00304

- HEH

- 1 (E.D. Va. Apr. 4, 2012) . 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 5

PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY
BARTLESVILLE, OKLAHOMA  74004    918 661-6600

LEGAL



                              April 10, 2001




Phillips Petroleum Company
Phillips Building
Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74004

Dear Sirs:

     I have acted as counsel for Phillips Petroleum Company, a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), in connection with the
preparation of the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-8
(the "Registration Statement"), being filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act"), in connection with the proposed
offering of an aggregate of 16,100,000 shares of common stock,
$1.25 par value, of the Company (the "Common Stock").  The Common
Stock is proposed to be offered and sold by the Company to its
employees from time to time (i) under the terms of the Omnibus
Securities Plan of Phillips Petroleum Company (the "Plan"), the
form of which is filed as Exhibit 4(a) to the Registration
Statement and (ii) under the terms of the 1990 Stock Plan of
Phillips Petroleum Company, the form of which is filed as
Exhibit 4(b) to the Registration Statement.

     In connection with the foregoing, I have examined the
originals or copies, certified or otherwise authenticated to my
satisfaction, of such corporate records of the Company,
agreements and other instruments, certificates of public
officials and of officers of the Company and other instruments
and documents as I have deemed necessary to require as a basis
for the opinions hereinafter expressed.  As to various questions
of fact material to such opinions, I have, where relevant facts
were not independently established, relied upon statements of
officers of the Company.

     On the basis of the foregoing, I advise you that in my
opinion the Common Stock proposed to be sold by the Company,
pursuant to the Plan, has been duly authorized for issuance and,
subject to the Registration Statement's becoming effective under
the Securities Act and to compliance with any applicable state
securities or Blue Sky laws, will be when sold under the terms of
the Plan legally issued, fully paid and nonassessable.

     I hereby consent to the filing of this opinion with the
Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement.  In giving this consent, I do not thereby
admit that I come within the category of persons whose consent is
required under Section 7 of the Securities Act or the rules or
regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission thereunder.

                              Very truly yours,

                             /s/ Robert C. Koch

<PAGE>
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. 731-TA-679 (Fifth Review)]

## Determination

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.                

## Background

The Commission instituted this review on September 1, 2023 (88 FR 60486) and determined on December 5, 2023 that it would conduct an expedited review (89 FR 8441, February 7, 2024).

                    The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on February 23, 2024. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5496 (February 2024), entitled                     *Stainless Steel Bar from India: Investigation No. 731-TA-679 (Fifth Review).*

By order of the Commission.

Issued: February 23, 2024.

Lisa Barton,

Secretary to the Commission.

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2024-04128 Filed 2-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Exhibit









January 18, 2019


Titan Machinery, Inc.
644 E Beaton Dr.
West Fargo, ND 58078


Attn: Mark Kalvoda
Chief Financial Officer
via electronic mail


Re: Wholesale Floor Plan Credit Facility


Dear Mr. Kalvoda,


Titan Machinery, Inc. (“Titan”) and CNH Industrial Capital America LLC (“CNHI”) are parties to that Amended and Restated Wholesale Floor Plan Credit Facility and Security Agreement dated November 13, 2007, as amended from time to time (the “Agreement”). This letter will confirm that, effective January 18, 2019, the current total wholesale floor plan credit limit for Titan is $310,000,000.00.  


Best Regards,


CNH Industrial Capital America LLC




_________________________________________
Mike VanVlaenderen, Strategic Accounts Manager




Titan agrees to the above described amendment to the Amended and Restated Wholesale Floor Plan Credit Facility and Security Agreement dated November 13, 2007, as amended.


Titan Machinery, Inc.




_________________________________________
Mark Kalvoda, Chief Financial Officer


CNH Industrial Capital America LLC
5729 Washington Ave
Racine WI 53406
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,619
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,742
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (445)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,388
<PP&E>                                          10,151
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,105)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,190
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,389
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,184
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,190
<SALES>                                         21,961
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,961
<CGS>                                           10,382
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,661
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (6,082)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (197)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,143)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        59
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,202)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.44)


</TABLE>