alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Quarterly Report of Orion Acquisition Corp. II
         (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as
         filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
         (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the
         dates indicated below, 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 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
                  operation of the Company.



        Dated:  August 19, 2002

                                             /s/ Anthony DiGiandomenico
                                             ----------------------------
                                             Anthony DiGiandomenico
                                             Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 6638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-3098]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Hydro Resources, Inc.; Notice of Reconstitution

[Docket No. 40-8968--ML; ASLBP No. 95-706-01-ML]

    Pursuant to the authority contained in 10 CFR Secs. 2.721 and 
2.1207, the Presiding Officer in the captioned 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L 
proceeding is hereby replaced by appointing Administrative Judge Thomas 
S. Moore as Presiding Officer in place of Administrative Judge Peter B. 
Bloch.
    All correspondence, documents and other material shall be filed 
with the Presiding Officer in accordance with 10 CFR Sec. 2.1203 
(1997). The address of the new Presiding Officer is: Administrative 
Judge Thomas S. Moore, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
    This Board reconstitution order is issued pursuant to the authority 
of the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing 
Board Panel.


    Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of February 2000.
G. Paul Bollwerk III,
Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. 00-3098 Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

# Time and Date:

11:00 a.m., Monday, December 4, 2000. 

# Place:

Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

# Status:

Closed.

# Matters to be Considered: 

1. Proposals relating to Federal Reserve System benefits. 

2. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees. 

3. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting. 

# Contact Person for More Information:

Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the Board; 202-452-3204. 

# Supplementary Information:

You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting. 

Dated: November 24, 2000.

Jennifer J. Johnson, 

Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-30456 Filed 11-24-00; 3:12 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
# LtCol Douglas G “Lucky” Luccio, USMC Published

/ Published Oct. 31, 2017

LtCol Douglas G “Lucky” Luccio, USMC was recently published in The Marine Corps Gazette. His article titled The Godfather Doctrine - SFA (security force assistance) traininganoffer the Marine Corps can't refuse is attached.

Summary of the article: The Marine Corps, like many institutions, has a rich history.  Part of that history includes military advising to include the Philippines (1890s), the Banana Wars (early 1900s), WWII, Korea and Vietnam.  POST-9/11 the DOD has had to adapt to skill sets that are not considered core capabilities in waging a counterinsurgency fight.  The opportunity to train and deploy military advisors was approached by the Marine Corps as if it was a new idea, something that had never been done before.  Training was impromptu and often inadequate when the first Marine Corps advisors were sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.  Several years later the kinks were worked out, and lessons learned in blood were adapted to ensure the best training for Marine advisors.  The conclusion follows a similar parallel to Viet Nam era Marine Corps advising.  Comparing lessons learned from Viet Nam to current conflict, there is a realization that this knowledge on how to train the next generation of Marine Corps advisors.  Specifically, there needs to be a Don of Military advising.  Just like Don Corleone (Godfather trilogy) led his family and ensured a legacy for the future of his enterprise, the Marine Corps should equally look at who is groomed for combat advising roles and under what environment.  We need not relearn from scratch.  The Marine Corps needs to codify its doctrine on military advising and ensure the next war has a running start with this often misunderstood endeavor.

Full Article: Marine Corps Gazette October 2017
Exhibit 10.35

Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers

In May, 2007, the compensation committee (the
Committee) of the board of directors of RadiSys Corporation (the Company) approved increases in annual base salaries and target bonuses of the following named executive officers (as defined by Item 402(a)(3)
of Regulation S-K), effective as of July 2, 2007:



|                                                    |  |                 |         |              |   |        
|--------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------- | ------- | ------------ | - | -------
|Executive Officer                                   |  | New Base Salary |         | Target Bonus
|Scott Grout - President and Chief Executive Officer |  | $               | 458,400 |              | $ | 348,000
|                                                    |  |                
|Brian Bronson - Chief Financial Officer             |  | $               | 284,500 |              | $ | 134,300
|                                                    |  |                
|Julia Harper - VP Corporate Operations              |  | $               | 247,200 |              | $ | 166,400
|                                                    |  |                
|Christian Lepiane - VP Worldwide Sales              |  | $               | 245,800 |              | $ | 154,600

The Committee also approved the payment of special bonuses to a group of selected employees,
including a bonus in the amount of $25,000 to Mr. Lepiane, in recognition of their contributions to the progress in the integration of the media server business of Convedia Corporation into the operations of the Company.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheet of Adams Outdoor Advertising Limited Partnership as of March 31, 1997 and
the related Statements of Operations and Cash flows and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001011977
<NAME> ADAMS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,497
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,322
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (667)
<INVENTORY>                                        212
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,617
<PP&E>                                         104,012
<DEPRECIATION>                                (53,144)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  75,067
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,118
<BONDS>                                        137,173
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (69,648)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    75,067
<SALES>                                         12,758
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,758
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,916
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,986
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,616
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (753)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (753)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (753)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IA 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 93 

Disapproving of the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving 

the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Amendment Act 

of 2010. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 23, 2010 

Mr. CHAFFETZ (for himself and Mr. JORDAN of Ohio) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving of the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Amendment Act of 2010. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the Congress disapproves of the action of the District 

4 of Columbia Council described as follows: The Legalization 

5 of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Amendment Act of 

6 2010 (D.C. Act 18–0429), approved by the District of Co7 lumbia Council on May 21, 2010, and transmitted to ConVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:42 Jun 24, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HJ93.IH HJ93

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 93 IH 

1 gress pursuant to section 602(c) of the District of Colum2 bia Home Rule Act on June 8, 2010. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Hardesty 

Par_raa-uirre 

Cherry 

discretionary. See NRS 176A.100(1)(c). We conclude that the district 

court did not abuse its discretion at sentencing, and we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

J. 

cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge 

State Public Defender/Carson City 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Carson City District Attorney 

Carson City Clerk 

2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Clark, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Suffolk County (Cacciabaudo, J.), both rendered October 12, 1989.

Ordered that the appeals are dismissed.

The defendant waived his right to appeal as part of his plea agreements. As we find that the waivers were made freely, knowingly, and voluntarily, the defendant’s appeals must be dismissed *(see, People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Kooper, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.
The FAA sent, to AerSale 1/19/2011, the following e-mail requesting clarification of a 

petition. In a related FAA telephone conversation 1/20/2011 at 9:24 a.m. with Tiffany 

Kolb and Bruce Embree of AerSale, it was agreed that AerSale would re-submit their 

petition to clarify the petitioned exemption’s timeframe requested (36 or 24 months, but 

not both), and to remove any mention of exemption from 14 CFR part 21, which AerSale 

had not originally intended to request. 

Subject: Koito seats exemption petition, Federal Docket no. FAA-2010-1134

From: Mark Forseth, ANM-113 Standardization Branch

To: iso.nezaj@aersale.com 

01/19/2011 02:24 PM 

Dear Mr. Nesaj, 

Re: the subject petition for exemption (dated Nov. 4, 2010) AerSale, Inc., submitted to 

the FAA, your petition makes reference to "Part 21, only as related to §§ 25.561, 25.562, 

and 25.853." Jeff Gardlin, the technical specialist assigned to processing AerSale's 

exemption, assumes that this statement intends exemption from 21.183(d)(3). 

Please confirm or correct our assumption, as the FAA requires explicit reference to the 

regulations from which you petition for exemption. We will add your reply to the subject 

docket as a matter of public record. 

Best regards, 

Mark Forseth 

Regulatory Technical Writer-Editor, ANM-113 

Standardization Branch 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

ph: 425-227-2796
<PAGE>




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Northstar Computer Forms, Inc. And Subsidiary on Form S-8 (File No. 33-83846) of
our report dated January 28, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements of Northstar Computer Forms, Inc. And Subsidiary as of October 31,
1996 and 1995, and for the years ended October 31, 1996, 1995 and 1994, which
report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.




                                            COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.


Minneapolis, Minnesota
January 28, 1997
#### FUTRELL v. STATE.

No. 15561.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 19, 1932.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 23, 1932.

H. M. Wade, of Rockwall, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, J.

The offense is transporting intoxicating liquor; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

No statement of facts is brought forward. Appellant brings forward two bills of exception in which he complains of the fact that the searching officer was permitted to testify touching the result of the search of his car. As far as the record reflects the matter, other testimony might have been given upon the trial of the case embracing the same crim-inative facts testified to by the officer. If the conclusion should be reached from an examination of the bills of exception that the testimony of the officer was erroneously received, we would be unable to say, in the absence of a statement of facts, that the error in receiving the testimony was harmful. If appellant, or,some other witness, testified without objection to the same criminative facts detailed by the officer, we would not reverse the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court.of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AIRNET 
SYSTEMS, INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED 
SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,437
<ALLOWANCES>                                       252
<INVENTORY>                                      9,596
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,132
<PP&E>                                         129,560
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,240
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 123,157
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,221
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           127
<OTHER-SE>                                      80,046
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   123,157
<SALES>                                            911
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                84,324
<CGS>                                              616
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,406
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,690
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 782
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,830
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,704
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,126
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,126
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.56
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 10.4

                                  November 11, 1999

John Giordano
5 Queen Anne Road
Hopkinton, MA 01748

Dear John:

  This letter is an addendum to your Employment Agreement dated September 9,
1999.

  As an added incentive for you to remain with Peritus during the next two
quarters, Peritus agrees to pay you the following additional retention payments.

           Retention Period       Payment Date    Payment Amount
         --------------------   ---------------   --------------
           4th Quarter 1999     January 1, 2000     $70,000.00
           1st Quarter 2000     April 1, 2000       $60,000.00

  The above payments (less applicable withholding taxes) will be paid to you on
the dates shown so long as you are employed by Peritus throughout the retention
period.

  Any unpaid portion of the above payments will be immediately paid upon
(i) termination of your employment by the Company without cause, or, (ii) the
merger, liquidation, consolidation, sale of substantially all of the assets,
bankruptcy, reorganization or receivership of the Company.


  Peritus Software Services, Inc.

  By:_________________________      ________________________

  Roland Pampel                     John Giordano
  Member Board of Director's        President and CEO
  Compensation Committee
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C Section 1350)



In connection with the Annual Report of Guardian Technologies International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Gregory E. Hare, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, that, to the best of his knowledge:



(1)

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



(2)

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





Date: March 29, 2007

Signed: /s/ Gregory E. Hare

Name:

Gregory E. Hare

Title:

Chief Financial Officer