alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
        32
 
 CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
        THE
        SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 Pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-
 Oxley
        Act
        of 2002, I, Daniel W. Finch, Chief Executive Officer of
 Advanced
        ID Corporation (the “Company"), hereby certify, that to the
 best
        of
        my knowledge, the Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
        quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with
        the
        requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
        1934
        and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company.
   Date:
        May
        19, 2006




/s/ Daniel
                W.
                FinchDaniel
                  W. Finch, Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 4.1.

                                 WaterChef, Inc.
                             A Delaware Corporation
                              Resolution Adopted By
                         WaterChef's Board Of Directors


The undersigned, being all Directors of WaterChef, Inc. (The "Corporation"),
hereby consent to the following actions and adopt the following recitals and
resolution as of May 24, 2002

Whereas the Board of Directors has determined that it is in the best interest of
the Corporation and its stockholders to adopt the following resolutions:

         Resolved, that 250,000 shares of the Company's common stock be issued
to the natural person named below in lieu of cash for compensation earned for
qualifying available candidates and establishing a network of sales distributors
to market the company's PureSafe products to domestic accounts, such shares to
be submitted on Form S-8 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

         Ron Breeding                                       125,000 shares
         147 Harbor Point Drive
         Celina, OH 45822


         Resolved, that 1,000,000 shares of the Company's common stock be issued
to the natural person named below in lieu of cash for investment banking
services performed in identifying and negotiating the acquisition of compatible
products and lines of business for the Company, such shares to be submitted on
Form S-8 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

         Jeff Carlson                                     1,000,000 shares
         C/o TMR Consulting
         P.O. Box 16962
         Encino, CA 91416



<PAGE>



The undersigned direct that this consent be filed with the minutes of the
proceedings of the Board of Directors of the Corporation.


/s/ David A. Conway
------------------------
David A Conway

/s/ Martin Clare
------------------------
Martin Clare

/s/ Marshall S. Sterman
------------------------
Marshall S. Sterman
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Herbert Lewis, Appellant.

Submitted January 3, 1944;

decided January 6, 1944.

Motion for reargument denied. (See 291 N. Y. 731.)
Richmond

#### A. B. Moore v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, Etc., Et Al.

June 18, 1956.

Record No. 4440.

Present, All the Justices.

*Richmond Moore, Jr. (B. Gary Blake; Blake, Taylor, Hazen and Taster; Tucker, Mays, Cabell and Moore,*on brief), for the appellant.

*Milton Kramer (Olin A. Rogers; Meade T. Spicer, Jr.; Lester P. Schoene; Charles M. Mulholland; Edward J. Hickey, Jr.; Rogers, Cudlipp and Savage; Schoene and Kramer; Mulholland, Robie and Hickey,*on brief), for the appellees.

*Per Curiam*

The determination of this case is controlled by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of *Railway Employes' Department*v. *Robert L. Hanson, Et Al.,*decided May 21, 1956, 351 U. S. 225, 76 S. Ct. 714, and accordingly the order of the Hustings Court of the City of Richmond, Part II, appealed from, is hereby affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
Ariel JENKINS v. STATE

CR-16-0339

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
CHARGE QUESTIONS:

USDA Protocol for Evaluation of Bite Protection from 

Repellent-treated Clothing for the United States Military

1. Is the protocol “Laboratory Evaluation of Bite Protection From Repellent Impregnated 

Clothing for the United States Military” likely to generate scientifically reliable data, useful 

for estimating the level of mosquito bite protection provided by two different textiles treated 

with etofenprox? 

2. Is the research likely to meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26, subparts K and 

L?
OSWER/OSRTI Washington, DC 20460



## N ATIONAL 

## P RIORITIES 

## L IST 

## (NPL)

***Proposed Site *** September 2012


### CLINCH RIVER CORPORA TION Harriman, Tennessee

Roane County

 **Site Location:**
The Clinch River Corporation s ite consists of a pproximately 30.5 acres and is located on the banks of the Emory

River/Watts Barr Reservoir in Harriman, Tennessee

.

 **Site History:**
Clinch River Corporation operated as a pulp and paper mill from 1929 until 2002. Byproducts of the manufacturing process include spent processing liquids (“black liquor”), coal tar constituents (polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs), and piles of wastepaper.

 **Site Contamination/Contaminants:**
Historical investigations at the site have revealed extensive contamination in surface and subsurface soil and shallow ground water. Contamination includes elevated concentr ations of site

- related hazardous substances, including dioxins, furans, PAHs, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and various metals in surface and sub

- surface soil. In addition, site

related contaminants have been found in sediment and fish tissue within th e Emory River/Watts Bar r Reservoir

.

 **Potential Impacts on Surrounding Community/Environment:**
Recent investigations suggest that off

- site migration from contaminated source areas of dioxins, furans, PAHs and several metals into Watts Barr Reservoir, may have affected the fishery. The Emory River (Watts Barr Reservoir) is used for recreational and subsistence fishing. An estimated 54,750 pounds of fish are harvested annually from the

Watts Bar r Reservoir. In addition, the Emory River/Watts Bar r Reservoir is a habitat for three federally designated endangered mussel species, including the Finerayed pigtoe mussel, Purple bean mussel and the Alabama lamp mussel.

 **Response Activities (to date):**
In September 2011, the EPA conducted an emergency removal at the site. The EPA removed 63 drums of hazardous material, contaminated soil from the drum storage area, and 20,000 gallons of black liquor from the site.

 **Need for NPL Listing:** The state of Tennessee referred the site to the EPA to allow for a comprehensiv e cleanup to address all the human health and environmental risks posed by the site. Other federal and state cleanup programs were evaluated, but are not viable at this time. The EPA received a letter of support for placing this site on the NPL from the st ate

.

[The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was evaluated with the HRS. The description may change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination.]

For more information about the hazardous substances identified in this narrative summary, including general information regarding the effects of exposure to these substances on human health, please see the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ToxFAQs. ATSDR ToxFAQs can be found on

the Internet at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/index.asp or by telephone at 1

- 88 8- 42

- ATSDR or 1

- 888

- 422

- 8737.
#### PARKSIDE GARDEN, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES State of CALIFORNIA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-56741

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 8, 2017 * Pasadena, California

Filed June 21, 2017

*821Amy Ghosh, Attorney, The Ghosh Law Group, APC., Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Jonathan E. Rich, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: BEA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and KOBAYASHI,** District Judge.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Leslie E. Kobayashi, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Parkside Garden, LLC, appeals the dismissal of its complaint against the California Department of Social Services (the “Department”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The Department is an agency and instrumentality of the State of California, and therefore entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. *See*U.S. Const, amend. XI (“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”); *Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman,*465 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (“It is clear, of course, that in the absence of consent a suit in which the State or one of its* agencies or departments is named as the defendant is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment.”). The California Government Code expressly defines “state agenc/’ as “every state office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, and commission.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 11000(a). The Department exists within the California Health and Welfare Agency. Cal. Welf. *&*Inst. Code § 10550. Further, the Department is designated by statute “as the single state agency with full power to supervise every phase of the administration of public social services ... for which grants-in-aid are received from the United States government or made by the state in order to secure full compliance with the applicable provisions of state and federal laws.” Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 10600.

The Department’s Request for Incorporation by Reference and/or Judicial Notice is granted. *See United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc.,*971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[W]e may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” (citation omitted)); *Interstate Natural Gas Co. v. S. Cal. Gas Co.,*209 F.2d 380, 385 (9th Cir. 1953) ("We may take judicial notice of records and reports of administrative bodies.”).

AFFIRMED.

***

 xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
13

Actual Adopted Est. Act. Proposed

FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14

Operating Expenditures

Administration 3,546,003 $ 3,318,852 $ 3,209,190 $ 3,365,397 $ 

Engineering 2,098,466 2,262,271 2,206,501 1,226,442 

Compliance - - - 1,104,363 

 3,335,190 2,947,193 3,107,560 3,037,248 

Operating Total 8,591,662 8,916,313 8,523,251 8,733,450 

Other Financing Uses

Increase in Fund Balance 740,280 241,927 843,772 219,952 

Expenditure Plan Total 9,331,942 $ 9,158,240 $ 9,367,023 $ 8,953,402 $ 

EXPENDITURE PLAN

Technology & 

Environmental Assessment

CHARACTER OF EXPENDITURES

Actual Adopted Est. Act. Proposed

FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14

Operating Expenditures

Regular Salaries 3,606,760 $ 3,606,801 $ 3,500,712 $ 3,546,577 $ 

Extra Help - 2,588 2,588 2,588 

Benefits 1,940,826 1,759,502 1,715,184 1,872,941 

Salaries & Benefits Total 5,547,586 5,368,891 5,218,484 5,422,107 

Services & Supplies 2,742,989 3,295,729 3,062,937 3,071,903 

Other Charges 148,120 161,293 151,430 149,440 

Fixed Assets 152,967 90,400 90,400 90,000 

Operating Total 8,591,662 $ 8,916,313 $ 8,523,251 $ 8,733,450 $
#### Augusta J. Hart et al., Appellants, *v.*Samuel M. Morgenstern et al., Respondents, Impleaded with Others, Defendants.

Argued November 19, 1943;

decided January 6, 1944.

*791
      *R. E. Burdick*and *Lewis M. Isaacs, Jr.*for appellants.

*David I. Michaelson*and *Sidney Sheingorn*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughban, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacheb, JJ.
Exhibit 10.2

 

EXECUTION COPY

 

AMENDMENT

TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

This Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement, dated effective as of May 1, 2011 (the “Agreement”), by and between HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“HCC”), and Christopher J. Williams, Jr. (“Executive”) is made and entered into as of May 15, 2012.  HCC and Executive are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the “Parties” and individually as a “Party”. All capitalized terms, not otherwise defined herein, shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Agreement.

 

RECITALS

 

WHEREAS, the Parties set forth the terms and conditions of Executive’s employment with HCC in the Agreement; and

 

WHEREAS, the Parties now desire to amend the Agreement to delete certain provisions relating to Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, HCC and Executive hereby agree as follows:

 

AGREEMENT

 

1.                                      Effective as of May 15, 2012, Section 18(f) of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety.

 

2.                                      The provisions of Section 1 of this Amendment are hereby incorporated into and made part of the Agreement as if fully set forth therein.

 

3.                                      Except as expressly provided herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged, and as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement is ratified and confirmed in all respects and shall remain in full force and effect.

 

4.                                      This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas.

 

[Signature Page Follows]

 

1











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth below.

 

 

	
EXECUTIVE:
    	
 
    	
HCC:
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
HCC   Insurance Holdings, Inc.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/   Christopher J. Williams, Jr.
    	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   John N. Molbeck, Jr.
    
	
Christopher   J. Williams, Jr.
    	
 
    	
 
    	
John   N. Molbeck, Jr.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Chief   Executive Officer
    
	
Date:
    	
May 15,   2012
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Date:
    	
May 15,   2012
    	
 
    


 

Signature Page –Amendment to Employment Agreement
[S. F. No. 6431.

In Bank.

January 14, 1913.]

#### COUNTY OF KINGS, and HANFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT OF KINGS COUNTY, Petitioners, v. D. BUNN REA, County Auditor of the County of Kings, Respondent.

School District—Bonds—Kind of Money in Which Bonds are to be Paid—Order of Board of Supervisors.—There being no specific requirement of the law declaring that bonds of a school district shall be made payable in money of a particular form or kind, a resolution of the trustees of the district, calling an election to determine whether the bonds shall be issued, is sufficient, when it provides for bonds payable in lawful money of the United States, and supports a subsequent order of the board of supervisors directing the issuance of the bonds and making them payable in gold coin of the United States.

Id.—Order Fixing Time for Interest Payment.—The board of supervisors, after the election authorizing the issuance of such bonds, Bad power to determine whether the interest thereon should be paid annually or semi-annually, notwithstanding the resolution of the board of trustees and the notice of the election was silent on that subject.

APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandate to compel the respondent, as auditor of the County of Kings, to sign and attest certain bonds and interest coupons attached thereto of the Hanford School District in Kings County issued by the board of supervisors of said county on October 9, 1912. The auditor based his refusal to sign and attest such bonds and coupons on the facts: (1), that the resolution and order of the Board of Trustees of said school district, calling an election to submit to the electors of the school district the question whether such bonds should be issued, failed to provide or specify the kind of money or currency in which said bonds should be paid, and that the hoard of supervisors of said county, in its resolution and order ordering the bonds issued, provided that they should be paid in United States gold coin; and (2), that the said order of the board of trustees of the school district and the notice of said election failed to provide when the interest on said bonds should be paid, whether annually, semi-annually, or otherwise, and that the said order of *509the board of supervisors provided that the interest should be paid annually.

J, L. C. Irwin, for Petitioners.

H. Scott Jacobs, for Respondent.

HENSHAW, J.,

acting chief justice, delivered the opinion of the court. If those are your two propositions, I speak for the Court in saying that where there is no specific requirement of the law declaring that money of a particular form or kind shall be designated, it is a good bond and it is in full compliance with the law, when it calls for “lawful money of the United States.”

And, second, it is clearly a power vested with the supervisors, after election, to determine whether the interest shall be paid semi-annually or annually. If those are your two propositions, they are resolved in favor of petitioner, and mandate will issue accordingly.
#### Brian Damon FARABEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SUPERINTENDENT, MEHERRIN RIVER REGIONAL JAIL; Va. Dep’t of Corr.; Commissioner of the DBHDS, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 16-7461

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2017

Decided: April 21, 2017

*269Brian Damon Farabee, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witnier, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Eugene Paul Murphy, Sean Joseph Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brian Damon Farabee seeks to appeal the district court’s orders purportedly accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition, and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); *Buck v. Davis,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 759, 773, 197 L.Ed.2d 1 (2017). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by showing that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must show both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

The magistrate judge found that Fara-bee’s § 2254 petition was a mixed petition of both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Applying *Rose v. Lundy,*455 U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982), the magistrate judge recommended dismissing the petition *without*prejudice to allow him to refile it after exhausting his claims in state court. *See also Rhines v. Weber,*544 U.S. 269, 277-79, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (2005). In its final order, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations but dismissed the petition *with*prejudice and denied reconsideration. On appeal, Farabee argues the district court erred in dismissing his petition *with*prejudice. We agree. We therefore grant a certificate of appealability on this issue, vacate the district court’s orders, and remand for reconsideration. 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.

*VACATED AND REMANDED*
#### Peter KINYANJUI, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-1368

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 18, 2017

Decided: October 12, 2017

Japheth N. Matemu, MATEMU LAW OFFICE, P.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Lindsay Corliss, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

*754Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KEENAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

. Peter Kinyanjui, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen as untimely and declining to apply equitable tolling. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and find no abuse of discretion. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2017). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In re Kinyanjui*(B.I.A. Feb. 28, 2017).

We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s refusal to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen and therefore dismiss this portion of the petition for review. *See Lawrence v. Lynch,*826 F.Sd 198, 206-07 (4th Cir. 2016); *Mosere v. Mukasey,*552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009). 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.

*DENIED IN PART-, DISMISSED IN PART ■*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fernando RIASCOS-CUENU, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41513 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Fernando Riascos-Cuenu, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Fernando Riascos-Cuenu has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Riascos-Cuenu has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Marisa Morel et al., Respondents, *v.*Elisha Hanson et al., Appellants.

Submitted November 15, 1943;

decided November 24, 1943.

*Joseph A. Niclcerson*for motion.

*Herman Kahn*opposed.

Motion dismissed, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements, on the ground that the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.