alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The UAS(s) I will be operating are small rotorcraft aircraft,

weighing 60oz including sensor payload. I will operate the

rotorcraft, under normal conditions at a speed of no more

than 17 knots, usually 3

- 5 knots, and have the capability to

hover, and move in the vertical and horizontal plane

simultaneously. I will manual ly operate only in Visual

Line of Sight and will operate only within the operating

parameters as described in the Operating Manual attached

as Attachment1.

Adherence to the Operating Manual will insure that the sUAS

will “not create a hazard to the nat ional airspace system or

the public.”

Given the small size and weight of the sUAS involved and

the restricted sterile environment within which they will

operate, the applicant falls squarely within that zone of

safety (an equivalent level of safety) in which Congress

envisioned that the FAA must, by exemption, allow

commercial operations of UASs to commence immediately.

Also due to the size of the UASs and the areas in which the

relevant sUAS will operate, approval of the application

presents no national security issue. Given the clear direction

in Section 333 of the Reform Act, the authority contained in

the Federal Aviation Act, as amended; the strong equivalent

level of safety, surrounding the proposed operations, and

significant public benefit, including enhanced safety,

reduction in environmental impact, including reduced

emissions associated with allowing UASs for educational

and marketing operations, (as opposed to full scale aircraft),

the granting of the requested exemptions is in the public

interest. Accordingly, the applicant respectfully requests that

the FAA grant the requested exemption without delay.
#### Clarence Grey, Respondent, v H.E. Kane et al., Appellants.

[769 NYS2d 905]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for civil rights violations pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, the defendants appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated October 4, 2002, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the federal civil rights cause of action, and (2) an order of the same court dated January 30, 2003, which granted their motion, in effect, for clarification of stated portions of the order dated October 4, 2002.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 30, 2003, is dismissed, as the defendants are not aggrieved thereby *(see*CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated October 4, 2002, is reversed, on the law, the motion for summary judgment is granted, and the federal civil rights cause of action is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

In opposition to the defendants’ prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the federal civil rights cause of action, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Cummings v McIntire,*271 F3d 341 [2001]; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action should have been granted. Ritter, J.P., Florio, S. Miller and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6007 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a microemployer 

pension plan startup credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 19, 2023 

Ms. TENNEY (for herself and Mr. KILDEE) introduced the following bill 

OCTOBER 25, 2023 

Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

for a microemployer pension plan startup credit. 

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 ‘‘Retirement Investment 

5 in Small Employers Act’’. 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6007 IH

1 SEC. 2. MICROEMPLOYER PENSION PLAN STARTUP CRED2 IT. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 45E of the Internal Rev4 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

5 following new subsection: 

6 ‘‘(g) CREDIT FOR MICROEMPLOYERS.— 

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a qualified 

8 microemployer— 

9 ‘‘(A) subsection (a) shall be applied by 

10 substituting ‘100 percent’ for ‘50 percent’, and 

11 ‘‘(B) subsection (b)(1) shall be applied by 

12 substituting ‘$2,500’ for ‘$500’ in subpara13 graph (A) thereof. 

14 ‘‘(2) QUALIFIED MICROEMPLOYER.—For pur15 poses of this subsection, the term ‘qualified micro16 employer’ means an employer which would be an eli17 gible employer if section 408(p)(2)(C)(i)(I) were ap18 plied by substituting ‘10’ for ‘100’, but only if the 

19 eligible employer plan established or maintained by 

20 such employer, under the terms of the plan, accepts 

21 payment of the matching contribution under section 

22 6433.’’. 

23 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

24 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

25 December 31, 2026. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Luis G. ALICEA SANTIAGO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-4826

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Marlon D. FLEMING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3195

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
James ROBINSON v. ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES

CR-16-0480

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**SARBANES-OXLEYSECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Rajat Rai, certify that:

 

1.               Ihave reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Option Care, Inc.;

 

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

 

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)              Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonable likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)             Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
| Date: August  9, 2004 | By:    | /s/ Rajat  Rai           |   |
|-----------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|                  |   | Rajat Rai                |
|                  |   | Chief Executive  Officer |

 

1

----
Michael J. LITTLES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1405

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 15, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

BLACK, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 15




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the Registration Statement Form F-3 (No. 333-88248, 333-109837, 333-111731, 333-111734, 333-117085, 333-131272 and 333-122407) and related Prospectus and on Form S-8 (File No. 333-94995, 333-141177, 333-65532, 333-151929 and 333-162104) pertaining to stock option plans of Commtouch Software Ltd., and to the incorporation by reference therein of our reports dated June 6, 2011 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Commtouch Software Ltd., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Commtouch Software Ltd., included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2010, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.





/s/Kost, Forer, Gabbay & KasiererA Member of Ernst & Young Global





Tel-Aviv, Israel


June 6, 2011









Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 
 
 We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the Registration Statement Form F-3 (No. 333-88248, 333-109837, 333-111731, 333-111734, 333-117085, 333-131272 and 333-122407) and related Prospectus and on Form S-8 (File No. 333-94995, 333-141177, 333-65532, 333-151929 and 333-162104) pertaining to stock option plans of Commtouch Software Ltd., and to the incorporation by reference therein of our report dated June 6, 2011 with respect to the statement of assets acquired and liabilities assumed and statement of attributable direct revenues and expenses of the Antivirus business line of Authentium Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2010.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Kost, Forer, Gabbay & KasiererA Member of Ernst & Young Global
  Tel-Aviv, Israel
 June 6, 2011
Exhibit






AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE
COLFAX CORPORATION 
AMENDED AND RESTATED EXCESS BENEFIT PLAN
The Colfax Corporation Amended and Restated Excess Benefit Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows, effective as of December 12, 2018:
		
	1.
	Section 1.15 is hereby deleted in its entirety and amended and restated as follows:


“Disability” or “Disabled” shall mean that a Participant is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. A Participant shall be considered Disabled only if he or she meets one or more of the following criteria: 
(a)      He or she has been determined under the Employer’s long-term disability plan as eligible for benefits thereunder; 
(b)      He or she has been determined by the Social Security Administration as eligible for Social Security disability benefits; or 
(c)  He or she has been determined to be Disabled (as defined above) by the Participant’s physician.
In all other respects the Plan, as amended herein, is hereby ratified and confirmed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Colfax Corporation has caused this instrument to be signed by its duly authorized officer as of this 12th day of December, 2018.
COLFAX CORPORATION
By:/s/ Gunnar Gustafson_______________________
Its:  Vice President, HR and Total Rewards_______




1
#### MASCO CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter A. PROSTYAKOV, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-3803

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Decided April 20, 2017

Rehearing En Banc ** Denied May 24, 2017

John K. Henning, Attorney, Kenneth Brian Siepman, Attorney, Ogletree, Dea-kins, Nash, Smoak *&*Stewart, P.C., Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Peter A. Prostyakov, Pro Se

Before RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge, MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

*

 This successive appeal has been submitted to a quorum of the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b), Judge John D. Tinder having retired since the time of our original decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

**

 Circuit Judge liana Diamond Rovner did not participate in the consideration of this petition for rehearing,

ORDER

This is a frivolous appeal. Peter Prostya-kov and Masco Corporation have been suing each other since them business relationship fell apart more than 20 years ago, when Masco discharged Prostyakov. Their dispute precipitated two arbitrations for claims for breach of contract. See *Prostyakov v. Masco Corp.,*513 F.3d 716 (7th Cir. 2008); see also *Masco Corp. v. Prostyakov (Masco Corp. II),*593 Fed.Appx. 570 (7th Cir. 2015); *Masco Corp. v. Prostyakov (Masco Corp. I),*558 Fed.Appx. 685 (7th Cir. 2014). We have previously affirmed the district court’s decisions to confirm the arbitration awards, see *Prostyakov, supra,*513 F.3d at 727; *Masco Corp. I, supra,*558 Fed.Appx. at 688, and to sanction Prostyakov with a fíne of $25,500 for filing needless motions, see *Masco Corp. II, supra,*593 Fed.Appx. at 570-71.

Undeterred, Prostyakov returned to the district court. Invoking Fed. R. Crv. P. 60(b)(3); which allows district courts to reopen cases based on fraud, he asked the court to overturn its prior judgments. He observes that the district court’s original decision confirming the first arbitration award included the sentence “Prostyakov was discharged for alleged theft.” Prostya-kov contends that Masco fabricated that *525allegation. But Prostyakov was aware of that allegation throughout this entire litigation, so it is not new. He had an opportunity to challenge the allegation during the arbitration, in the district court *before*it confirmed the arbitration awards, and on direct appeal from that confirmation. He may not do so, however, through a collateral attack under Rule 60(b)(3). “Otherwise ‘fraud on the court’ would become an open sesame to collateral attacks, unlimited as to the time within which they can be made by virtue of the express provision in Rule 60(b) on this matter, on civil judgments.” *Oxxford Clothes XX, Inc. v. Expeditors Int’l of Wash., Inc.,*127 F.3d 574, 578 (7th Cir. 1997).

Because this appeal is frivolous, we give Prostyakov 14 days to show cause why we should not impose a sanction of $5,000.

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Laverne EZEKIEL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4591

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 8, 2017

Decided: June 2, 2017

Robert L. McClellan, IVEY, MCCLELLAN, GATTON & SIEGMUND, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Robert A. J. Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Láveme Ezekiel appeals his conviction after pleading guilty to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Ezekiel claims that the district court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his plea. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

We review the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion. *United States v. Nicholson,*676 F.3d 376, 383 (4th Cir. 2012). *“A*defendant has no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea, and the district court has discretion to decide whether a fair and just reason exists upon which to grant a withdrawal.” *United States v. Bowman,*348 F.3d 408, 413 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted); *see*Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). “The most important consideration in resolving a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is an evaluation of the Rule 11 colloquy at which the guilty plea was accepted.” *Nicholson,*676 F.3d 376 at 384 (internal quotation marks omitted); *accord United States v. Moore,*931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991).

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that Ezekiel entered his guilty plea voluntarily and with the close assistance of competent counsel, an<j that the district court was within its discretion *116to deny his motion to withdraw it.* Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.

*AFFIRMED*

*

 To the extent Ezekiel asserts a standalone claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, he should raise that claim in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. *See United States v. Baptiste,*596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010).
**Verification Process**

Consistency Applications and Monitoring and Verification Reports must include a signed verification statement and verification report from a state-accredited independent verifier. **State Accreditation** Each independent verifier must be accredited by the RGGI State in which the offset project is located, although a RGGI State may acknowledge accreditation by another RGGI State. **Pre-Engagement COI Filing** Prior to engaging with an offset project sponsor to provideverification services, an accredited verifier must submit a preengagement conflict of interest (COI) disclosure filing to the appropriate regulatory agency in the state where the offset project is located. This filing is required for disclosure of potential relationships or other issues that could lead to a COI situation between the verifier and the offset project sponsor or a related party. The links below lead to each state's offset program webpage, which contain state-specific verifier accreditation instructions, verifier accreditation application materials, and pre-engagement COI submittal forms. Connecticut Delaware Maine Maryland Massachusetts New Hampshire New York Rhode Island Vermont
Project sponsors should contact state offset program staff with specific program questions. Contact information can be found through the link on the right hand side of this page.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 1 / 1 Phoca PDF
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Terra Energy & Resource Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the “Report”), I, Roman Rozenberg, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 results of operations of the Company. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| /s/ Roman Rozenberg |
|---------------------|

Roman Rozenberg

Chief Executive Officer

April 17, 2007
EXHIBIT 32



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 NetIQ Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the year
ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Charles M. Boesenberg, Chief Executive Office and James A. Barth, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certifies pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    CHARLES M.
BOESENBERG                               
|Charles M. Boesenberg President and Chief Executive Officer



September 8, 2003

|                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    JAMES A.
BARTH                                           
|James A. Barth Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



September 8, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-26-1997
<CASH>                                       5,687,000
<SECURITIES>                                14,047,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               21,394,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,100,000
<INVENTORY>                                  8,265,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            49,867,000
<PP&E>                                      15,013,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,700,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              69,972,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,414,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       119,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  57,762,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                69,972,000
<SALES>                                     34,772,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            34,772,000
<CGS>                                       24,294,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,482,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               378,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,618,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,398,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,220,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,220,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        


</TABLE>