alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of INCA Designs, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2008 (the Report), I, Stacy Josloff, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Stacy Josloff      
|Stacy Josloff          
|Chief Executive Officer
|August 18, 2008        

A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



- 8 -
No. 28,542.

#### Margaret C. Northrup Staley et al., *Appellants,*v. David Espenlaub, Samuel Clarke and Peter Kramer, as the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Wyandotte, *Appellees.*

(275 Pac. 1095.)

Opinion denying a rehearing filed April 5, 1929.

(For original opinion of affirmance see 127 Kan. 627.)

*Thomas E. Joyce,*of Kansas City, for the appellants; *Anthony P. Nugent,*of Kansas City, Mo., of counsel.

*John E. McFadden*and *Errett P. Schrivner,*both of Kansas City, for the appellees; *O. Q. Claflin, Jr.,*of Kansas City, of counsel.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Burch, J:

In a petition for rehearing it is said the case is controlled by the decisions in the cases of *Allen v. Douglass,*29 Kan. 412; *Wright v. Bacheller,*16 Kan. 259, and *Venable v. Dutch,*37 Kan. 515, 15 Pac. 520. The principle announced by those decisions is in effect that an answer in ejectment used as the basis for affirma*2tive relief quieting the defendant’s title must state a cause of action with the same completeness and particularity as a petition to quiet title. Of course the principle is sound as a general principle, but conditions may make the principle of no consequence in a given case. This court did its best to demonstrate that the principle was not involved in the present case. The court does not feel that anything can be added to the original opinion making the matter plainer, but the points may be recapitulated.

The answer was not attacked in the district court until after judgment. The answer was then amended. The statute conferred on the district court power to amend if there was anything amendable on file. The answer was sufficient to challenge judicial attention and action, and so was amendable. The amendment was not questioned in the district court. Therefore the judgment rested on a perfectly good answer, and the form and contents of the original answer were no longer of any consequence.

The petition for rehearing undertakes to raise a question in this court which is not involved in the appeal. The appeal was from a decision of the district court in a case in which the plaintiffs appeared generally, and which the district court was authorized to determine. Plaintiffs’ reasons for wanting to dismiss were of no interest to the district court. It was trying an action to quiet title. The question presented by the appeal was whether the judgment of the district court quieting title was erroneous. The function of this court ended with the decision of that question, and the decision is adhered to.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
     I, Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr., certify that:
     1. Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of ReGenBiologics, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a — 15(e) and 15d — 15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: June 18, 2004         By:  /s/ GERALD E. BISBEE, JR.    Name:    Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr.    *Title:*     *President andChief Executive Officer*
James Michael TAYLOR v. STATE

CR-16-0198

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6180 

To reaffirm the applicability of the Indian Reorganization Act to the Poarch 

Band of Creek Indians, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2023 

Mr. CARL (for himself, Mr. LAMALFA, Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas, Ms. MOORE

of Wisconsin, Mr. MOORE of Alabama, Ms. SEWELL, Mr. COLE, Mr. 

ROGERS of Alabama, and Mr. STRONG) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To reaffirm the applicability of the Indian Reorganization 

Act to the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Poarch Band of Creek 

5 Indians Lands Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY OF INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—For the purposes of the Act of 

8 June 18, 1934 (commonly known as the ‘‘Indian Reorga9 nization Act’’; 25 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.), the Poarch Band 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6180 IH

1 of Creek Indians is deemed to be a recognized Indian tribe 

2 now under Federal jurisdiction. 

3 (b) LANDS TAKEN INTO TRUST.—All lands taken 

4 into trust by the United States for the benefit of the 

5 Poarch Band of Creek Indians prior to the date of enact6 ment of this section are reaffirmed as trust land, and the 

7 actions of the Secretary of the Interior in taking such 

8 lands into trust under the Indian Reorganization Act are 

9 ratified and confirmed. 

10 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect 

11 as if enacted on June 18, 1934, and shall apply to all 

12 claims, including claims challenging the validity of title or 

13 the effectiveness of any action of the Secretary acquiring 

14 and taking land described in subsection (a) into trust, that 

15 are pending on the date of enactment of this section, or 

16 that are filed on or after that date. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
### EPA – PCA Meeting **Thursday, September 15, 2011 EPA Office, RTP, NC** 

**10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. EDT**

Tentative Meeting Agenda Dial In: (888) 387-8686, then 4089494

1) Introductions 2) Review/Discuss CISWI Data Issues a) Size of Actual CISWI Data Pool b) Specific Concerns with D/F data interpretation c) Concerns with other Emission Limits, including limi ted consideration of variability d) Too few data to quantify variability 3) Need to Revise Rule to Correct Ingredients Issue 4) Implementation Concerns (Timing, Conflicts with NES HAP, etc.) 5) Schedule for CISWI Rule Changes 6) Other Business 7) AdjournFrom: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Nizich.Sharon@epamail.epa.gov, Amy Hambrick/RTP/USE PA/US@EPA

Date: 07/12/2012 03:52 PM Subject: Fw: Tentative Agendas for Thursday Meetings

Here is info on the 9/15/11 meetings. There was a C ISWI and a Cement NESHAP meeting. No one from the C ISWI project team was available that day - so I filed in for the CISW I team at the meeting. Keith W. Barnett USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

919-541-5605

----- Forwarded by Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US on 07 /12/2012 03:40 PM -----

From: O’Hare, Andrew <AOhare@cement.org>

To: David Cozzie/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Keith Barnett/RTP/US EPA/US@EPA, Peter Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Steven Silverman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 09/13/2011 04:13 PM Subject: Tentative Agendas for Thursday Meetings

Gentlemen,

Attached please find tentative agendas for the two meetings on Thursday at RTP, the first addressing t he commercial and industrial solid waste incinerator (CISWI) rule (10 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.), th e second addressing reconsideration of the portland cement national emission standard for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP -12:30 – 2:30 p.m. ).

I would also appreciate it if you would arrange for a conference phone in the meeting room(s) so that PCA members unable to be present in person may participate by conference call. I am hap py to host the call using my dial in number: (888) 387-8686, then 4089494. I have also noted this dial in number on the tentative agendas.

Please let me know if you have any questions. I loo k forward to see you all on Thursday.

Regards, Andy

Andrew T. O'Hare Vice President, Regulatory Affairs

Portland Cement Association 500 New Jersey Avenue, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20001 Office: (202) 408-9494 Fax: (202) 408-0877 Cell: (202) 270-0094 e-mail: aohare@cement.org

(See attached file: EPA PCA Meeting September 15, 2 011 CISWI.docx)(See attached file: EPA PCA Meeting September 15 2011 NESHAP.docx )
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6163 

To amend title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, to revise references 

in such title to individuals with intellectual disabilities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 1, 2023 

Ms. NORTON (for herself, Mr. MOLINARO, Mr. LYNCH, Mr. POCAN, Mr. 

MCGOVERN, Mr. MULLIN, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. CROCKETT, Mr. DUNCAN, 

Mr. DOGGETT, and Mr. CARTER of Louisiana) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To amend title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, to 

revise references in such title to individuals with intellectual disabilities. 

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 ‘‘Words Matter for the 

5 District of Columbia Courts Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6163 IH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES TO INDIVIDUALS WITH INTELLEC2 TUAL DISABILITIES. 

3 (a) JURISDICTION OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT

4 COURT.—Section 11–501(2)(D), District of Columbia Of5 ficial Code, is amended by striking ‘‘substantially retarded 

6 persons’’ and inserting ‘‘persons with moderate intellec7 tual disabilities’’. 

8 (b) JURISDICTION OF SUPERIOR COURT.—Section 

9 11–921(a)(4)(D), District of Columbia Official Code, is 

10 amended by striking ‘‘substantially retarded persons’’ and 

11 inserting ‘‘persons with moderate intellectual disabilities’’. 

12 (c) JURISDICTION OF FAMILY COURT.—Section 11– 

13 1101(a)(15), District of Columbia Official Code, is amend14 ed by striking ‘‘the at least moderately mentally retarded’’ 

15 and inserting ‘‘persons with moderate intellectual disabil16 ities’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with BILLS
#### Ames RAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald WATNICK, Julie Stark, Defendant-Appellees.

No. 16-1705-cv

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 14, 2017

FOR APPELLANT: Frank Raimond, Raimond & Wong LLC, New York, NY.

FOR APPELLEES: Cheryl F. Korman (Janice J. DiGennaro, on the brief), Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale NY.

PRESENT: PETER W. HALL, GERARD E. LYNCH, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Ames Ray appeals from the district court’s decision granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

“We review de novo the grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, accepting all factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” *Trs. of Upstate N.Y. Eng’rs Pension Fund v. Ivy Asset Mgmt.,*843 F.3d 561, 566 (2d Cir. 2016) (citing *City of Pontiac Policemen’s & Firemen’s Ret. Sys. v. UBS AG,*752 F.3d 173, 179 (2d Cir. 2014)).

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is hable for the misconduct alleged.” *Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

I. Plausibility

We agree with the district court’s determination that none of the allegedly deceitful statements set forth in the complaint could plausibly be understood to be deceitful when read in the proper context. The district court analyzed each of those statements in its written decision and explained why each failed to raise a plausible claim of deceit under New York Judiciary Law § 487. We affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned written decision.

*42II. New York Judiciary Law § 487 “Extreme or Egregious” Standard

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the complaint on the independently sufficient ground of the implausibility of the allegations of intentional deceit, we need not reach the issue of whether the allegations were, or needed to be, “extreme or egregious,” so as to satisfy the requirements of New York Judiciary Law § 487.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit










Exhibit 10.3.7
FIFTH AMENDMENT
TO THE
TELEFLEX INCORPORATED 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN
Background Information


		
	A.
	Teleflex Incorporated (the “Company”) maintains the Teleflex Incorporated 401(k) Savings Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of its eligible employees and the eligible employees of its affiliated entities that have elected to participate in the Plan and their beneficiaries.


		
	B.
	The Vice President, Global Human Resources (the “Vice President, Global HR”), has been authorized pursuant to Section 13.02 of the Plan to amend the Plan in accordance with the authority delegated to him.


		
	C.
	In accordance with his delegated authority, the Vice President, Global HR desires to amend the Plan to: (i) increase the maximum qualified percentage for automatic Elective Deferral Contributions to 10%; and (ii) make the annual increase in automatic Elective Deferral Contributions effective as of the first pay period in April of each year. 




Fifth Amendment to the Plan


The Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of January 1, 2018: 


		
	1.
	Section 3.02.C., “Automatic Elective Deferral Contributions,” is hereby amended by revising the third and fourth sentences thereof to read as follows: 


The qualified percentage for Covered Participants who have been automatically enrolled in the Plan and have not otherwise made an affirmative election with respect to their Elective Deferral Contribution percentage (including an election not to make Elective Deferral Contributions) shall increase by 1% for each subsequent Plan Year up to 10%. The increase for a Plan Year will be effective as of the first pay period in the April of the Plan Year.
		
	2.
	All other provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.


                    
TELEFLEX INCORPORATED
s/ Cam Hicks___________________
Cam Hicks                                                                       
Vice President, Global Human Resources


Date:     March 28, 2018                         ______
Roger S. INMAN, DOC #523728, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-723

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 13, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Jorge I. DIAZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Nelly M. GUALE, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4560

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marlow Andre FARMER, a/k/a Andre Womack, a/k/a Dred, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6222

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 24, 2017

Marlow Andre Farmer, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorneys, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marlow Andre Farmer seeks to appeal his 1997 criminal judgment. Because we have already considered an appeal from the same order, we dismiss the appeal. *See United States v. Lipford,*203 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 2000). We deny Farmer’s motions for *240a transcript, to file a supplement, and to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court, and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                         859,579
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,087,856
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                          640,750
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            138,515
<PP&E>                                         140,591
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,989,317
<SHORT-TERM>                                   963,031
<PAYABLES>                                   3,313,859
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                          4,111,677
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                               6,396
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           11,948
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,798
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,208,177
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,989,317
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                    0
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                           806,765
<COMMISSIONS>                                1,004,508
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                  148,316
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             455,688
<COMPENSATION>                                 424,617
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                381,568
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     381,568
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   210,316
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.55


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32(a) CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of RARE Hospitality International,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 28, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Philip J. Hickey, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company. /s/ Philip J. Hickey, Jr.  
 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 RARE Hospitality
International, Inc. and will be retained by RARE Hospitality International,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

 

 ) 

ANTONIO COLBERT, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Civil Action Nos. 

 ) 11-771, 11-772, 11-928 (JDB) 

F.B.I., et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

 ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff commenced these consolidated cases against the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, and the Clerk of 

the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, alleging that they all in 

some way or another contributed to the disruption of his mail. Defendants moved to dismiss 

these cases. See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss the Compls., ECF No. 5.1 The Court ordered Plaintiff to 

respond to that motion on or before August 1, 2011 and warned Plaintiff that failure to timely 

respond could result in the motion being granted as conceded. Order, ECF No. 10. To date, 

Plaintiff has not filed any response to that motion. Therefore, in a separate order to issue this 

date, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss as conceded. 

Date: September 9, 2011 /s/ 

JOHN D. BATES 

United States District Judge 

 1

 ECF numbers refer to the docket in Civil Action No. 11-771.