alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1 Certifications Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)  In connection with the Quarterly Report (the Report) of Precision Aerospace Components, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Andrew S. Prince, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his knowledge:  (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/ Andrew S. PrinceAndrew S. PrincePresident , Chief Executive Officer andChief Financial Officer Date: May 9, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3302 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3302

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To name the Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in Bay Pines, 
   Florida, as the ``C.W. Bill Young Department of Veterans Affairs 
                           Medical Center''.

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

SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER, BAY 
              PINES, FLORIDA.

     The Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in Bay Pines, 
Florida, shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known and 
designated as the ``C.W. Bill Young Department of Veterans Affairs 
Medical Center''. Any reference to such medical center in any law, 
regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of the United States 
shall be considered to be a reference to the C.W. Bill Young Department 
of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 22, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3302

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in Bay Pines, 
   Florida, as the ``C.W. Bill Young Department of Veterans Affairs 
                           Medical Center''.
```
#### DE BOSE v. STATE.

No. 22931.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 1, 1944.

Aubrey Davee, of Brady, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was given sentence of one year in the penitentiary upon conviction for assault to murder.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of trial court is affirmed.
**Exhibit 10.1**

 

**CONSULTING AGREEMENT SECOND AMENDED ADDENDUM**

 

 

ThisConsulting Agreement Second Amended Addendum is entered into effective as of December 18,2004, and is a supplement to, and modification of, that certain ConsultingAgreement (the “Original Agreement”) by and between F.Y.I. Incorporated (n/k/a *SOURCECORP,*Incorporated) (the “Company”) and DavidLowenstein (“Consultant”), dated as of January 1, 2000.

 

1.             **Fee Modification.** Effective December 18, 2004, in addition to the fees contemplatedby Section 2 of the Original Agreement, Consultant’s hourly rate of$140.00 shall be increased to $180.00 per hour for services Consultant performsat the request of, and on behalf of, the Company, subject to the aggregatecompensation limitation under the Original Agreement of $250,000 for anycalendar year.  The proviso ofSection 1 (which relates to activities not subject to an hourly rate) ofthat certain Consulting Agreement Addendum dated as of March 6, 2003 shallremain in effect.

 

2.             **Governing Laws.**  This SecondAmended Addendum shall in all respect be construed according to the laws of theState of Texas.

 

3.             **Counterparts.**  This SecondAmended Addendum may be executed simultaneously in two (2) or morecounterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of whichtogether shall constitute but one and the same instrument.

 

4.             **Effect of Second AmendedAddendum.**  Except as specifically amended by this SecondAmended Addendum, all provisions of the Original Agreement (as amended by theConsulting Agreement Amended Addendum entered into effective as of October 1,2004) remain in full force and effect in accordance with their express terms.

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amended Addendumas of the day and year first above written.

 
| ***SOURCECORP,*****Incorporated** | **CONSULTANT**                          |
|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
| **(f/k/a  F.Y.I. Incorporated)**  |                                    |
|                              |                                    |
|                              |                                    |
| By:                               | /s/ Thomas C. Walker                    |   | /s/ David Lowenstein |   |
|                              | Thomas  C. Walker                       | David  Lowenstein |
|                              | Chairman  and Chief Development Officer |   |
|                                   |                                         |  |  |  |

 

----
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 29, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-22-00706-CV

RONALD J. BIBB, JR. AND LEYONN P. SIMELTON, Appellants

V.

423 COLONY, LTD., Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-01777-2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Carlyle, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Myers

Before the Court is appellants’ motion to dismiss the appeal because the 

parties have settled their differences. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

220706f.p05

/Lana Myers//

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

RONALD J. BIBB, JR. AND 

LEYONN P. SIMELTON, 

Appellants

No. 05-22-00706-CV V.

423 COLONY, LTD., Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial 

District Court, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-01777-

2020.

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. 

Justices Carlyle and Goldstein 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that the parties bear their own costs of this appeal. 

Judgment entered this 29th day of August, 2022.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 2.4


                               AVE, INCORPORATED

             INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA




This Certifies that

is the owner of

   FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, $.001 PAR VALUE, OF

                               AVE, INCORPORATED

transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by attorney upon
surrender of this Certificate duly endorsed or assigned. This Certificate and
the shares represented hereby are subject to the laws of the State of Nevada,
and to the Certificate of Incorporation and By-Laws of the Corporation, as now
or hereafter amended. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the
Transfer Agent.

     Witness, the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures
of its duly authorized officers.

     Dated: October 2, 1998
                                        CORPORATE
     /s/ GENE KLAWETTER                               /s/ GEORGE SULLIVAN
CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER      SEAL              SECRETARY
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3276 

To prohibit the operation of an exercise facility for Members of the House 

of Representatives during a Government shutdown. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 8, 2013 

Mr. FOSTER (for himself and Mr. MURPHY of Florida) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To prohibit the operation of an exercise facility for Members 

of the House of Representatives during a Government 

shutdown. 

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 ‘‘Shutdown 

5 Prioritization Act’’ or the ‘‘SPA Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING OPERATION OF MEMBER EXERCISE 

7 FACILITY DURING SHUTDOWN. 

8 (a) PROHIBITION.—The Architect of the Capitol may 

9 not operate an exercise facility for Members of the House 

10 of Representatives during a Government shutdown. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3276 IH

1 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act— 

2 (1) a ‘‘Government shutdown’’ shall be consid3 ered to be in effect if there is a lapse in appropria4 tions for any Federal agency or department as a re5 sult of a failure to enact a regular appropriations 

6 bill or continuing resolution; and 

7 (2) the term ‘‘Members of the House of Rep8 resentatives’’ includes any Delegate or Resident 

9 Commissioner to the Congress. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

FrankHinshaw, SKYDIVING SCHOOL,INC., d/b/a SKYDIVE HA WAil AND ISLAND SKYDIVING, LLC COMPLAINANT 

### v. THE STATE OF HAWAII RESPONDENT. Docket

### No. 16-12-04

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME
Pursuant to 14 CFR 

### § 16.11 (a), the Director does hereby extendthe date that the Director's initial determination will be rendered in the above-referenced case to on or about June 4, 2013. Anextension is necessary because the Agency requires additional time to review information it believes is essential for a fair and complete hearing ofthe matter.

Director, Office ofAirport Compliance

and Management Analysis Date

## MAR·2 8 

## 2013

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March£, 2013 Iplaced in the United States mail (first class, postage paid), a true copy ofthe Notice ofExtension ofTime addressed to: Frank Hinshaw Skydiving School Inc., d/b/a Skydive Hawaii PO Box 75520 Honolulu, HI 96836 Complainant Richard 

### J. Durden Attorney at Law 27987 Richmond Hill Road Conifer, CO 80433
. Counsel for Complainant Glenn 

### I. Kimura Deputy Attorney General Department ofthe Attorney General, State ofHawaii 465 S. King Street, Room 300 Honolulu, HI 96813 Counsel for Respondent Copyto: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airport Compliance and ManagementAnalysis, AC0-100

Office ofAirport Compliance

and Management Analysis
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERTO RIOS-VIZCARRA,

Petitioner-Appellant,

 v.

GEORGE WIGEN, Warden, Moshannon

Valley Correctional Institution,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 14-17234

D.C. No. 

1:14-cv-00875-LJO-MJS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neil, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 17, 2016** 

San Francisco, California

Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Rios-Vizcarra appeals the dismissal of his motion to vacate, set

aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Rios-Vizcarra claims that a

prior state conviction in California should not be construed as a “prior drug felony”

FILED

OCT 24 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
for the purposes of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) after the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Descamps v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013). The district court held that his

motion did not qualify as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, because it did not

claim actual innocence, and dismissed it. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.

The district court did not err when it concluded that Rios-Vizcarra failed to

satisfy the requirement of the § 2255(e) escape hatch. Even if it is possible for a

petitioner to “be actually innocent of a noncapital sentence for the purpose of

qualifying for the escape hatch,” Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1193, (9th Cir.

2012), Rios-Vizcarra fails to make a plausible showing of actual innocence. RiosVizcarra does not allege that he was factually innocent of the state conviction, nor

was Rios-Vizcarra statutorily ineligible to receive his sentence, either with or

without the enhancement. Finally, Rios-Vizcarra’s sentence poses no violation of

constitutional rights. Failing to meet any of the possible exceptions to the §

2255(e) escape hatch for noncapital sentencing enhancements outlined in Marrero,

682 F.3d at 1193–95, Rios-Vizcarra cannot bring a § 2241 petition to challenge his

sentence. 

2
AFFIRMED.

3
- 1 -

Alexander Van der Bellen

Managing Director and

Associate General Counsel

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

1212 New York Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20005

202.842.4184

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

June 6, 2013

via email and regulations.gov

Esta Rosenberg

Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Joint Application of Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Skywest Airlines, Inc.

For Los Angeles - Leon/Guanajuato Service

Docket DOT-OST-2013-0114

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

This letter is to confirm that Delta has polled all of the carriers on the service list to the above 

referenced application and there are no objections. In these circumstances, we urge that the 

application be granted as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted,

Alexander Van der Bellen

cc: Brian Hedberg, DOT

 Bob Finamore, DOT

Brett Kruger, DOT

 info@airlineinfo.com
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 23, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-20154

Conference Calendar

 

EDGAR FERNANDO BLANCO PUERTA,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of Attorney

General; MICHAEL T. SHELBY, United States Attorney

(Southern District of Texas); NEIL H. ADLER, Federal Bureau

of Prisons,

Respondents-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CV-36

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

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edgar Fernando Blanco Puerta, federal prisoner #16259-179,

appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

petition without prejudice to Puerta’s seeking relief via the

appropriate procedural vehicle. Although Puerta has briefed the

merits of his claims, he has failed to address the procedural

issue presented by the district court’s dismissal of his

petition. Puerta has failed to brief the sole relevant issue for
No. 05-20154

-2-

appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813

F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). His appeal therefore is dismissed

as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
```

[Federal Register: August 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 153)]
[Notices]               
[Page 48329-48332]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10au10-42]                         

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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

[Public Notice 2010-0030]

 
Agency Information Collection Activities: Final Collection; 
Comment Request

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the U.S.

ACTION: Submission for OMB Review and Comments Request.

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

    Form Title: Application for Short Term Letter of Credit Export 
Credit Insurance Policy.
SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a 
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to 
comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    The Application for Short Term Letter of Credit Export Credit 
Insurance Policy will be used to determine the eligibility of the 
applicant and the transaction for Export Import Bank assistance under 
its insurance program. Export Import Bank customers will be able to 
submit this form on paper or electronically.
    The Export Import Bank has made changes to incorporate new 
information in the Certification and Notice sections of this form to 
clarify and expand to

[[Page 48330]]

encompass broader anti-corruption certifications. In the Certification 
and Notice sections we rewrote some of the language for clarification, 
we corrected references to the debarment list, and we added references 
to the OFAC and the EPLS system.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before October 12, 2010 to be 
assured of consideration.

DATES: Comments maybe submitted electronically on http://www.regulations.gov or by mail to Michele Kuester, Export Import Bank 
of the United States, 811 Vermont Ave., NW. Washington, DC 20571.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Titles and Form Number: EIB 92-34 Application for Short Term Letter 
of Credit Export Credit Insurance Policy.
    OMB Number: 3048-0009.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Need and Use: The Application for Short Term Letter of Credit 
Export Credit Insurance Policy will be used to determine the 
eligibility of the applicant and the transaction for Export Import Bank 
assistance under its insurance program.

Sharon A. Whitt,
Agency Clearance Officer.
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10AU10.015

[[Page 48331]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10AU10.016

[[Page 48332]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10AU10.017

[FR Doc. 2010-19664 Filed 8-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-C
```
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 Terayon Communication Systems, Inc.
Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63
of Title 18 of the United States Code I, Mark A. Richman, the Chief Financial Officer of Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. (the
Company), certify that to the best of my knowledge:  (i)
    the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K dated March 15, 2005 for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    the information contained in the said Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: March 15, 2005
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Mark A. RichmanMark A. RichmanChief Financial Officer
June 24, 2015 

Mrs. Elizabeth Meyer 

Ipswich Community Access Media 

ICAM 

25 Green Street 

Ipswich, MA 01938 

Dear Mrs. Meyer: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your June 5, exemption request on behalf of Ipswich Community Access Media 

into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2125), but we are unable to process your request any 

further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy 

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 
2 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us 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 hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
P.1 

OAR Box 1802 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

72) IV-E-66 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/2008 11:58:00 AM Sheet 72 of 117 
P.2 

f\-°ib-%lDate: July 31, 2000 

To: Air and Radiation Docket # A-90-37 

From: Dennis Crumpler, Integrated Implementation Group, 

ITPID, MD-12 

Re: Meeting with NEDA CARP 

On October 22,1997, staff from the Integrated Implementation Group at EPA's Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards met with representatives ofthe National Environmental 

Development Association Clean Air Regulatory Project (NEDA CARP) in Durham, North 

Carolina. An attendee list is attached. This was one of several sessions that day with this group 

industry representives that visit OAQPS periodically to stay abreast ofthe activities of this EPA 

office that affect their respective companies. The purpose ofthe meeting was to provide NEDA 

CARP with an update on the schedule ofthe NSR Reform rulemaking. Dennis Crumpler gave a 

quick report of how the public comments were generally split on the major parts ofthe NSR 

Reform rule. The NEDA CARP members queried how was EPA planning to implement the 

President's directive on the new National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and fine 

particulate matter relative to new source review (NSR) and the final NSR Reform (now "NSR 

Improvement") rulemaking. The EPA indicated some ideas had been internally discussed for 

grouping parts ofthe NSR Reform rule into sequential rulemakings due to the resource and 

schedule requirements imposed by the President's directive, but that other strategies could be 

adopted. Substantive issues in the NSR Transition Program for the new ozone and PM NAAQS 

and the NSR Reform rule were not debated or discussed. 

cc: Pam Smith, (MD-12) 

Jon Devine, OGC 

Attendees: 

Ernie Rosenberg, Occidental Petroleum 

Bill, Burkhart, Procter & Gamble 

Karen Blanchard, EPA, OAQPS 

Todd Hyde, Merck Pharmaceutical 

Dennis Crumpler, EPA, OAQPS 

Bernie Paul, Eli Lilly & Co. 

Maxine Dewbury, Procter & Gamble 

David Emery, Phillips Petroleum 

Leslie Ritts, Esq. 

Hogan & Hartson-NEDA Carp 

Barbara Bankoff, 

Representing Eli Lilly & Co 

Yat Yeung Lucent Technologies 

Lynn Hutchinson, EPA, OAQPS 

"1 
P.3 

•A. 

Dave Svendsgaard To: bill.pedersen@shawpittman.com 

07/28/00 03:29 PM 

cc: Dennis Crumpler/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Subject: Follow-up on PCP Exclusion issues 

Bill, 

Just wanted to give you my email address. As we discussed after Tuesday's meeting, we certainly want 

to hear about any cases in which BACT-level control has been required for mitigating collateral pollutant_ 

increases in order to qualify for the PCP Exclusion. 

Dave Svendsgaard 

EPA/OAQPS/ITPID/IIG 

919.541.2380-phone 

919.541.5509-fax