alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Learn more at www.nationalguard.mil

Current as of August 2022 Point of Contact: NGB Public Affairs at (703) 607-2612

Highlights

• Activated under the control of 

the Governor

• Deploys and conducts command and control (C2); works 

alongside first responders in: 

Search and Extraction (S&E); 

Decontaminations (DECON); Casualty Assistance (CASE), Medical 

Triage and Stabilization (MEDEL), 

and Fatality Search and Recovery 

(FSRT).

• Can operate in regional and 

national level

• HAZMAT Awareness Operations 

level certified

• Total of 10 HRF’s; one per 

FEMA Region

• Capable of managing additional 

NG response units involved in a 

catastrophic

• Bridges coordination between 

NG response and Federal capabilities

• Casualty Assistance Support 

Element (CASE) provides

 - Multi-faceted section

 - Provide Force Protection (from 

disruptive victims / Incident stragglers)

 - General site security

 - Litter bearers

Mission: When directed by proper authority and consent of the governor(s), 

the HRF alerts and assembles within 6-12 hours; on order, deploys and conducts command and control (C2); search and extraction (S&E); decontamination (DECON); casualty assistance (CASE); medical triage and stabilization 

(MEDEL); and fatality search and recovery (FSRT) to save lives and mitigate 

human suffering. The Joint Incident Site Communications Capability (JISCC) 

ensures that the CERFP can communicate with local, state, and federal partners. On order, transitions operations to civil authorities and redeploys.

Overview: The Adjutant General may employ the HRF to support the state 

response under the direction of the governor or to support another state’s 

response under a sup- ported governor.

• There are 10 National Guard (NG) HRFs. Regionally oriented, HRFs are 

hosted by one state in each of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) regions. HRF’s are hosted in WA, CA, UT, TX, MO, GA, OH, NY, MA, 

and PA. In Region I, HRF units are stationed in multiple states (MA and VT). 

In Region II, HRF units are also stationed in multiple states (NY and NJ).

• Each HRF is comprised of 574 Army and Air NG personnel. The core of 

each HRF is Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) response capability similar to that found in the existing 17 CBRNE Enhanced 

Response Force Package (CERFPs), HRFs have substantial command and 

control and security capability.

• The HRFs operate alongside other NG-sourced CBRNE Consequence 

Management forces that include Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support 

Teams (WMD-CSTs) and CERFPs. The federal-controlled elements include 

Defense CBRNE Response Force (DCRF). The state and federal responses 

make up the CBRN Response Enterprise (CRE) consisting of almost 20,000 

Service Members. 

• Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) remains the mechanism for interstate employment – under state control.

2020: The Year of the Guard Homeland Response Force (HRF)

A broad range of capabilities at a moment’s notice
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONSFOR THE THREE AND
NINE MONTHS ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, FOUND ON PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE COMPANY'S
10-QSB FOR THE THIRD QUARTER OF 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                  1000

<S>                            <C>             <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                  9-MOS           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1999     JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-30-1999     SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                 242               0
<SECURITIES>                             0               0
<RECEIVABLES>                          802     0
<ALLOWANCES>                          (419)    0
<INVENTORY>                            126     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       800     0
<PP&E>                               1,106     0
<DEPRECIATION>                        (978)    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       1,179     0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                1,789     0
<BONDS>                              2,728     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0     0
<PREFERRED>                              0     0
<COMMON>                            22,059     0
<OTHER-SE>                         (25,397)    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         1,179     0
<SALES>                                783     493
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       783     493
<CGS>                                  138     83
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        2,399     1,111
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        17     (1)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     505     86
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (2,276)    (786)
<INCOME-TAX>                             0     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (2,276)    (786)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0     0
<CHANGES>                                0     0
<NET-INCOME>                        (2,276)    (786)
<EPS-BASIC>                        (0.30)    (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (0.30)    (0.10)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

John P. McLaughlin,
President and Chief Executive Officer, and Christine R. Larson, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, of PDL BioPharma, Inc. (the Registrant), each hereby certifies in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on his or her knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 will be
provided to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Dated: April 30, 2010



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/    John P. McLaughlin                 
|John P. McLaughlin                        
|President and Chief Executive Officer     
|(Principal Executive Officer)             
|                                          
|/s/    Christine R. Larson                
|Christine R. Larson                       
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Financial Officer)
D.S., SR., Father of D.N.S. and A.A.S., minor children, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3832

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 15, 2018

Robert Allen, Pensacola, for Appellant.

Sarah J. Rumph, Appellate Counsel, Children's Legal Services, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wolf, Kelsey, and Jay, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7170

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL ANTHONY OXENDINE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Rockingham. William L. Osteen, Sr.,

District Judge. (CR-93-229, CA-96-900-3)

Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 26, 1998

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony Oxendine, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Oxendine Nos. CR-93-229; CA-96-900-3

(M.D.N.C. Aug. 4, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND DECEMBER 31, 1997, AND THE
CONDENSED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS AND SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE
30, 1998 AND 1997.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000882159
<NAME> DAW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           3,083
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,534
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (415)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,778
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,752
<PP&E>                                          13,850
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,270)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,515
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,915
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           124
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,669
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,515
<SALES>                                         24,329
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,329
<CGS>                                           25,610
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,346
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (57)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 190
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,150)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,916)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,234)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,234)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.26)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Cincinnati Development III, LLC,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

Cincinnati Terrace Plaza, LLC, et al.,

 

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:18-cv-00586

Judge Michael R. Barrett

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Cincinnati Terrace Plaza, LLC,’s

Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment. (Doc. 22). For good cause shown, the Motion is GRANTED and 

Defendant Cincinnati Terrace Plaza, LLC, shall have up to and including February 6, 

2019, to file a Response. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

_/s Michael R. Barrett____

Michael R. Barrett, Judge

United States District Court

Case: 1:18-cv-00586-MRB Doc #: 25 Filed: 01/22/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 768
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Michael E. Boxer, Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of Mariner Health Care, Inc. (the Company),
certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, that:  (1)
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements
of sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. Date: May 7, 2004 /s/  Michael
E. BoxerMichael E. BoxerExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer (PrincipalFinancial Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF OHIO 

LABORERS' FRINGE BENEFIT 

PROGRAMS,

 

 Plaintiff, 

v.

H&J CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

 Defendant.

 Case No. 2:18-CV-00602-MHW

JUDGE WATSON

 Magistrate Judge Jolson 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

IT APPEARS that Defendant H&J Construction, Inc. has been regularly served with

a Summons and Complaint and has failed to defend. (Docs. 2–4). The Defendant has failed

to obtain counsel to represent it, and hasfailed to show cause why defaultshould not be entered.

Defendant’s default has been duly entered according to law. (Doc. 6).

Therefore, upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 18), it is 

RECOMMENDED that judgment be hereby entered against Defendant in pursuance of the

prayer of Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. 1).

Specifically, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs Boards of Trustees of the Ohio

Laborers’ Fringe Benefit Programs, now known as Ohio Laborers’ Benefits have and recover

from H&J Construction, Inc. the sum of Nineteen Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Nine

Dollars ($19,599.00), in unpaid fringe benefit contributions, liquidated damages and interest

for the period October, 2017 through July, 2018, plus attorneys’ fees of Six Thousand One
Hundred Sixty Dollars and No Cents ($6160.00), plus interest from the time of judgment at the

rate of 1% per month, and the costs of this action. (See Docs. 18-1, 18-2).

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen 

(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those specific 

proposed finding or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting 

authority for the objection(s). A District Judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination 

of those portions of the Report or specific proposed findings or recommendations to which 

objection is made. Upon proper objection, a District Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or 

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further 

evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and 

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the district judge review the Report 

and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of 

the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: April 8, 2019 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
EXHIBIT 10.10


                          EXCERPT OF RESOLUTIONS OF THE
       BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF P.A.M. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. ADOPTED
                                NOVEMBER 17, 2005
   AMENDING INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN 2000C WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO EXECUTIVE
                      OFFICERS AND CERTAIN OTHER EMPLOYEES


INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLANS - EXTENSION THROUGH 2005
-----------------------------------------------------

RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors has determined that Incentive Compensation
Plan  -  2000A  ("Plan  A"),  Incentive  Compensation Plan 2000B ("Plan B"), and
Incentive  Compensation  Plan  2000C  ("Plan  C"), which are presently in effect
(collectively  the  "Plans"),  should be extended for an additional year so they
will  also  apply to the calendar year 2005, and the Plans are extended to apply
to 2005.

RESOLVED  FURTHER,  that the provisions of Exhibit A to each of the three Plans,
respectively,  which  establish  the targeted operating ratios and corresponding
bonus  percentages for 2000-2002 calendar years, and which were also applied for
calendar  years  2003  and  2004, shall, subject to the provisions of the Plans,
also apply to 2005.

RESOLVED  FURTHER,  that the employees who are designated as the participants in
each  of  Plan  B and Plan C for 2005, subject to the provisions of those Plans,
are  the  employees selected by the Compensation and Stock Option Committee (the
"Compensation  Committee")  as  the  participants in Plan B and Plan C for 2005;
which  employees are the same as the employees selected to participate in Plan B
and  Plan  C, respectively, for 2004, and are listed on the schedule provided to
the Board of Directors.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that pursuant to Section 7 of Plan B and Plan C, respectively,
Sections  4(c) (Payments of Awards) of each of such Plans is amended by adding a
new  clause  (vi)  to  each that follows the timing patterns of awards for prior
years, while making specific provision for corresponding timing for 2005 awards,
and provides as follows:

"(vi)     Any bonus that is awarded for the 2005 calendar year shall be made as
          follows:

         (x)  fifty percent (50%) of the bonus shall be paid on or before
              March 31, 2006;

         (y)  twenty-five percent (25%) of the bonus shall be paid on or before
              March 31, 2007; and

         (z)  twenty-five percent (25%) of the bonus shall be paid on or before
              March 31, 2008."


                                      -62-
<PAGE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

GAYLE A. JOHNSON, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff and ) 

 Counterclaim Defendant, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY ) 

(INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE), ) 

 ) 

 Defendant and ) 

 Counterclaim Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

AKIL R. SHARIF, ) 

 ) 

 Counterclaim Defendant, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

DAY-MONT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ) 

CARE INC. ) 

 ) 

 Third Party Defendant. ) 

_______________________________________) 

Case No. 3:18-cv-185-TMR 

Judge Thomas M. Rose 

FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST GAYLE JOHNSON AND AKIL SHARIF

 This matter came before the Court on the Stipulation to Final Judgment Against Gayle 

Johnson between counterclaim defendant Gayle Johnson and counterclaim plaintiff United 

States, (Doc. 51), the Stipulation to Final Judgment Against Akil Sharif between counterclaim 

defendant Akil Sharif and counterclaim plaintiff United States, (Doc. 45), and the parties’ joint 

motion for entry of final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), (Doc. 52). 

The counterclaim defendants Gayle Johnson and Akil Sharif having waived entry of 

Case: 3:18-cv-00185-TMR Doc #: 53 Filed: 03/02/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 1814
2 

findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

and there being no just reason to delay entry of final judgment, the Court enters the following 

final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b): 

Counterclaim defendant Gayle Johnson is liable to the United States in the amount of 

$608,093.84 as of January 22, 2021, plus statutory additions and interest pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 

§§ 6601, 6621, and 6622 and 28 U.S.C. § 1961(c) from that date, for the unpaid liabilities 

assessed pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6672 for the periods ending March 31, 2015, June 30, 2015, 

September 30, 2015, December 31, 2015, March 31, 2016, June 30, 2016, and September 30, 

2016. 

Counterclaim defendant Akil Sharif is liable to the United States in the amount of 

$468,860.87 as of January 12, 2021, plus statutory additions and interest pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 

§§ 6601, 6621, and 6622 and 28 U.S.C. § 1961(c) from that date, for the unpaid liabilities 

assessed pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6672 for the periods ending March 31, 2015, June 30, 2015, 

September 30, 2015, December 31, 2015, and March 31, 2016. 

Dated: March 2, 2021 s/Thomas M. Rose 

 ___________________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case: 3:18-cv-00185-TMR Doc #: 53 Filed: 03/02/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 1815
Andre Legay WALLACE v. STATE

CR-15-1324

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
Kenneth MADDEN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Mary HITCHMAN, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4813

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 01, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed for failure of the Appellant to comply with this court's January 3, 2018, order.

LaROSE, C.J., and SILBERMAN and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Apria Healthcare Group Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2010 (the Report), I, Chris A. Karkenny, Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 5, 2010                              
|                                                    
|/s/ CHRIS A. KARKENNY                               
|Chris A. Karkenny                                   
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
### 2 Attachments

Raj, Lisa, Anna,

Greetings. Attached please find proposed edits to EPA’s suggested biogenic GHG language. Let’s chat sometime today about these if possible.

Thanks,

Christine

202.395.4638 

### Interagency revisions to EPA pr oposed Biogenic emissions language

Kymn, Christine J.

to:

Raj Rao, Lisa Sutton, Anna Wood

08/03/2010 12:03 PM

Show Details

History: This message has been forwarded.

Interagency edits1_Proposed language, biogenic GHG sources, EPA NPRM s, Actions to Ensure Authorit y to Issue Permits under the P SD Program to Sources of GHG Emissions.docx

Interagency edits2_Proposed language, biogenic GHG sources, EPA NPRM s, Actions to Ensure Authorit y to Issue Permits under the P SD Program to Sources of GHG Emissions.docx 

# Page 1 of 1

8/26/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\lsutto01\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web1625.

...