alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
, C.J. Hardesty

Dobrescu , D.J. J.

, J.



### 7/ son 

### D.J. Gibbons Saitta

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 

### see Club Vista Fin. Servs., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 128 Nev.,

Adv. Op. 21, 276 P.3d 246, 249 (2012) (recognizing that Idliscovery matters are within the district court's sound discretion, and [this court] will not disturb a district court's ruling regarding discovery unless the court has clearly abused its discretion"). As petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court "clearly abused its discretion" in granting the motion to compel discovery, 

### Club Vista, 128 Nev., Adv. Op. 

### 21, 276 P.3d at 249; 

### Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 225, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004), 

### we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz Pisanelli Bice, PLLC Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs Howard Avchen & Shapiro, LLC/Los Angeles BuckleySandler LLP Holland & Hart LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

2
Exhibit 31.1

                          SECTION 302 CEO CERTIFICATION

I, Pasquale Catizone, President, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Hibshman Optical Corp;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
         material information relating to the registrant, including its
         consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
         entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
         prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
         and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
         this report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
         the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of
         the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

        a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
        operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the
        registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
        data; and

        b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
        employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
        control over financial reporting; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  March 30, 2005                           /s/ PASQUALE CATIZONE
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Pasquale Catizone
                                                President

                                       1
srqT~

s UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

w WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

o 

a e 

o= 

q< PROtSG~\ 

SFP 2 2 2009 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

J.R. Stroble 

Acting Director, National TRU Program 

U.S. Department of Energy 

P.O. Box 3090 

Carlsbad, NM 88221-3090 

Dear Mr. Stroble: 

On July 1, 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) 

requested the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of a recalibration of the 

Central Characterization Project's (CCP) High Efficiency Neutron Counter (HENC), nondestructive assay (NDA) system. I'his system is used to assay contact-handled (CH) transuranic 

(TRU) waste at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). 

The baseline inspection report identified this as a Tier 1 change, which requires EPA 

approval prior to implementation. According to the requirements of 40 CFR 194.8 (b), DOE 

appropriately requested approval of the recalibration of the HENC for CH waste as a Tier 1 

change to the INL-CCP CH baseline approval. 

EPA conducted an evaluation of the HENC that included a review of the calibration and 

other records. EPA's evaluation did not identify any findings or concerns related to the use of 

the HENC for the characterization of CH TRU waste components in the range and limits for 

which it is calibrated. EPA's evaluation report (Docket no. A-98-49;1I-A4-119) for the HENC is 

enclosed and will be placed in the Agency's public docket. 

EPA has detennined that the HENC system, is adequate for characterization of CH TRU 

waste at INL-CCP. This approval does not make any changes to the tiering table provided with 

the baseline approval. 

Internet Address (URL) . http://www.epa.gov 

RecycledlRecyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
If you have any questions regarding this approval, please contact Ed Feltcorn at 

(202) 343-9422 or Rajani Joglekar at (202) 343-9462. 

Sincerely, 

~ 

Tom Peake, Director 

Center for Waste Management and Regulations 

Enclosure 

cc: Electronic Distribution 

Alton Harris, DOE HQ 

Vernon Daub, CBFO 

Ava Holland, CBFO 

Courtland Fesmire, CBFO 

Casey Gadbury, CBFO 

Norma Castaneda, CBFO 

Martin Navarrete, CBFO 

Dennis Miehls, CBFO 

Steve Zappe, NMED 

Allison Pangle, CTAC 

Wayne Ledford, CTAC
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2143 

To provide for the authority for the successors and assigns of the StarrCamargo Bridge Company to maintain and operate a toll bridge across 

the Rio Grande near Rio Grande City, Texas, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 6, 2015 

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

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To provide for the authority for the successors and assigns 

of the Starr-Camargo Bridge Company to maintain and 

operate a toll bridge across the Rio Grande near Rio 

Grande City, Texas, 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. STARR-CAMARGO BRIDGE. 

4 Public Law 87–532 (76 Stat. 153) is amended— 

5 (1) in the first section, in subsection (a)(2)— 

6 (A) by inserting ‘‘, and its successors and 

7 assigns,’’ after ‘‘State of Texas’’; 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2143 IS

1 (B) by inserting ‘‘consisting of not more 

2 than 14 lanes’’ after ‘‘approaches thereto’’; and 

3 (C) by striking ‘‘and for a period of sixty4 six years from the date of completion of such 

5 bridge,’’; 

6 (2) in section 2, by inserting ‘‘and its succes7 sors and assigns,’’ after ‘‘companies’’; 

8 (3) by redesignating sections 3, 4, and 5 as sec9 tions 4, 5, and 6, respectively; 

10 (4) by inserting after section 2 the following: 

11 ‘‘SEC. 3. RIGHTS OF STARR-CAMARGO BRIDGE COMPANY 

12 AND SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. 

13 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Starr-Camargo Bridge 

14 Company and its successors and assigns shall have the 

15 rights and privileges granted to the B and P Bridge Com16 pany and its successors and assigns under section 2 of 

17 the Act of May 1, 1928 (45 Stat. 471, chapter 466). 

18 ‘‘(b) REQUIREMENT.—In exercising the rights and 

19 privileges granted under subsection (a), the Starr20 Camargo Bridge Company and its successors and assigns 

21 shall act in accordance with— 

22 ‘‘(1) just compensation requirements; 

23 ‘‘(2) public proceeding requirements; and 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2143 IS

1 ‘‘(3) any other requirements applicable to the 

2 exercise of the rights referred to in subsection (a) 

3 under the laws of the State of Texas.’’; and 

4 (5) in section 4 (as redesignated by paragraph 

5 (3))— 

6 (A) by inserting ‘‘and its successors and 

7 assigns,’’ after ‘‘such company’’; 

8 (B) by striking ‘‘or’’ after ‘‘public agen9 cy,’’; 

10 (C) by inserting ‘‘or to a corporation,’’ 

11 after ‘‘international bridge authority or commis12 sion,’’; and 

13 (D) by striking ‘‘authority, or commission’’ 

14 each place it appears and inserting ‘‘authority, 

15 commission, or corporation’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
LightPath Technologies, Inc 10-K
  Exhibit 32.1
 
 
 Certifications of Chief Executive Officer
 Pursuant to 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code
 
 Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of LightPath Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge, that:
 
 1.      The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended June 30, 2011 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2.      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated:  September 8, 2011
/s/ J. James GaynorJ. James Gaynor,

President and Chief Executive Officer
 The certifications set forth above are being furnished as an exhibit solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor shall they be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to LightPath Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by LightPath Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RALPH M. MALONE,

Petitioner,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2014-3211

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DE-0831-14-0311-I-1.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

O R D E R

Ralph M. Malone moves for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis.

Upon consideration thereof,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted.

Case: 14-3211 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 10/15/2014
2 MALONE v. OPM

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Daniel E. O’Toole 

Clerk of Court

s21

Case: 14-3211 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 10/15/2014
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice 130563 & (46) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 130563 COA: 256192 Wayne CC: 03-013613-01 ARTHUR SUMERLIN, III, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 29, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to

remand is DENIED.

p0724 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 31, 2006

Clerk
AMENDMENT 4
                                       TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     THIS AMENDMENT dated as of November 1, 1996 to EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT dated
as of August 1, 1994 (the "Employment Agreement") between DANSKIN, INC.
("Employer") and MARY ANN DOMURACKI ("Employee"):


     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises of such Employment
Agreement and the covenants contained therein, and other good and valuable
consideration, the Employer and Employee hereby agree to amend AMENDMENT 2 of
the Employment Agreement in the following respects:

     Effective November 1, 1996, Amendment 2 shall become null and void.

Paragraph 1.02 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to include the
following:

     Position. The Employee is employed to be and serve as the Chief Executive
     Officer of the Employer, reporting to the Employer's Board of Directors,
     and shall serve on the Employer's Board of Directors.

Article II of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to include the
following:

     2.01 Primary Duty. The primary duty of the Employee shall be to exercise
     general power and control of all of the Employer's business affairs. The
     Employee shall devote her best efforts and substantially all of her working
     time and attention to the affairs of the Employer.

     2.02 Other Duties. In addition to the Employee's primary duties, she shall
     also perform such other work commensurate with her position that may from
     time to time be assigned to her by the Board of Directors of the Employer.

Paragraph 4.02 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to include the
following:

     vi)  a lump sum payment in the amount of $62,917, representing Base
          Compensation earned by the Employee under the Employment Agreement but
          unpaid for the period from January 1, 1995 and October 31, 1996. This
          amount shall be paid no later than the last day of the month in which
          the Employee is terminated for any reason other than "for cause" or
          resigns her employment following a "change in control."
<PAGE>


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 4
as of the date first set forth above.


                                              DANSKIN, INC.

                                              By: /s/ Edwin W. Dean
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Name:  Edwin W. Dean
                                              Title: Vice Chairman and Secretary


                                              /s/ Mary Ann Domuracki
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Mary Ann Domuracki
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

I, Edwin W. Hortman, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of Ameris Bancorp (the Company), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ending September 30, 2010 (the Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                                                            
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 8, 2010 |  | /s/ Edwin W. Hortman, Jr.                                  
|                        |  | EdwinW. Hortman, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer
|                        |  | (principal executive officer)
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 04, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, February 04, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15I0107. INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES COMPANY v.

WORLDWIDE DEDICATED SERVICES, INC..

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

12C04665
REF ID:A65362 

UJ-.22 2 5 JANi949 e.tral Repoe1\o17 fClll' Len._ I 

u.. wm,- Iii. Jl7 

l. r.- t.S. t.o ~ le__..• an pnpencl b¥ A'ft9 Seou:rit.1 """°' per....:J tor ,...._.t,ioe withia and ou~alde of t.htl Al/lll1flt• hepantion ot tlleae laot.u.Na 

often ~ ~· naarcb U. aD4 the i.nfbl'mt.1ca eont.el'lf!d t.her.iA 

!a ~ ol plMB"al. int.NA to V. TariCIUI SWf ..-1oa8 add operaUDg 

cli:tia'aa1. 

2. Ia Ol'd..- that each loatarM •be re1d117 av•Uable tor rot ...... 1t. 

1a deeired t.~ inrll.YidWll• m• SW"e)'IU'e lectures in. .-it.t«i tom, ~de a .rtioient naaDll" ot copl•• torr diaV'ibll\ion aa toll.ans 

07 furn.1aboda 

AS-14 

,\>J3 

ilia\orian (.U-13) - 1 oopy 

Otfioe ot t.hll!t D•ll&t7 eb1et (AS-.21J) - l OOi'.'J' 

Of!ices Trai.a.:1.Ag atvia.1..on• ASA Seh..;ol. - .l cow 

.., - .111 " _?:!.~: 

or.ricer'e Tl-ain1n~ 4>1-.1sian 

-~· :::.-w:-.e.!., S.:.~al Corps 

Act1n~ Dep~ty Cn1et 

_\rmy Seourity Agen<r? 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 04-30-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

...:..-· __ .:. .1.- -- - .. 

- -----
#### Schluckebier and others, Appellants, vs. Babcock and others, Respondents.

*September*27

*October 20, 1899.*

*Bill of exceptions: Extension of time for settling: Discretion.*

Refusal to permit an unsuccessful party to file exceptions to the findings, and to extend the time within which to settle a bill of exceptions, after the time therefor had expired, is *held*not to have> been an abuse of discretion, where the record failed to disclose any adequate excuse for the delay of over six months after the entry of judgment, or to show that a bill of exceptions would be of any advantage if settled.

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Columbia county: R. G. Siebeckeb, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

An issue, on appeal from county court by the present respondents, was tried in the circuit court for Columbia county on the 18th day of May, 1898. Bindings were made and filed, and judgment entered, on June 6th, and notice of entry of judgment was duly served on the attorneys for these appellants on the 26th day of July. An extension of time to settle the hill of exceptions was granted to som© time in December. Ro exceptions to the findings, were filed. On February 1, 1899, appellants served notice of a motion for an order permitting them to file exceptions to. the findings, returnable February 14th, and renewing, and extendingr the time in which they might serve and settle the bill of exceptions, which was accompanied by a proposed bill of exceptions. The order being denied, an appeal was taken therefrom. The affidavits, proposed bill of exceptions, and order are included in the record, but not the pleadings, findings, or judgment. From the bill of exceptions it appears that the appellants did not offer any evidence upon the trial-

For the appellants there was a brief by *Malone <& Ilill’er?*and oral argument by *J. E. Malone.*

For the respondents there was a brief by *Sawyer de Sawyer?*and oral argument by *II. W. Sawyer.*

*294Dodge, J.

The record not only fails to show any adequate excuse for the delay for more than six months from ihe entry of the judgment, but it also fails wholly to show that a bill of exceptions could be of any advantage to the appellants if settled. Upon no subject is the discretion of the trial court broader than upon applications by parties in , default for favors and extensions of time in matters of mere procedure, such as this. ¥e discover no abuse of such discretion here.

*By the*Oourt.— Order appealed from affirmed.
• REF ID:A363ll3 

- /°L-90 

-. ADDRESS ONLY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE .A.ll communicaiiam respeclinlf this application should sive 1h11 serial number, dale of Jilin1.1, THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS 

WASHINGTON Z!i, D. C. UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

WASHINGTON 

• Iha applicanr.. !.. J 

. Please find below a communicationfrom the EXAMINER . HI\~ 11 'i949 

in charge of this application. ,/ ,1 • 1111'\ 

;..._ 4.c u.... • • • c e ~l""'""';,,or.o.__~:...c;.-...,...,,,~ 

Commissioner of Paten:.,.._.._ __ _. 

Heney B. Ste.utter 

AX'my Security Agonoy The Pontar;on Washington 25, .o. c. 

ML/cg . ' ·"¥ 

Division: .... ,.2.;. :roon ,616· ····~ · 

Applicant: W11 l1ain r. FP1odrnan 

Ser. No. 551172 . Filed August 25, l9h4 

For .A.u~hontico.t1nc Dev1oe 

neapons1 ve to aaencit1ont of Septembet" 2, 

1948: 

(l) T'uo cancellation or els.ins l nnd 4 1s 

hel.'oby noted. 

(2) '.Ibe Friedman patent ha3 been co?'rcctl-y 

1dent1!'iod by counsel as Mo. 2080416. 

( ~) Appl1oat>.t' s 1nteJ:tprotn.tion of' claim 

2 1e cons1clerod to renclov the claim unpatentable ovo~ 

either o.r the Friedmen patents or liebern,._ It 1a not con• 

aldorod 1nvent1ve to provide means :ror chnng1ng the s.1gn1• 

i'ioance or the 1nd1on.t1ng m·:::ans in t"te .re!'orenoen. 

<4> Tho tora tta prodetercdnod nu.mbertt 

1n cla1a 3 is applicable to a seloctor that can close all 

tho 1nx.\uts Qn<l. al.so only one. I£ 1 t 1a desired to l1t:d. t 

the claim to aoloctor 90•?7 which olosea 1nput o1rou1ta 

which are neither one not' all then tho cln1m should be 

amended acoordtnely., Clc.tir.ta ' and 5 '1S at present woI'dod, 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-29-2014 pursuantto E_O_ 1352a 
REF ID:A363i13 

,... 

ai-e rejected ~or tho same l'aaaona as claim 2 • 

(5) Cla1r.i 6 appenrit Qllowab1c aa at 

p:ttesent advised.
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/07

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL