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



Exhibit 32(b) 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 accompanying Quarterly Report of ALLTEL Corporation (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffery R. Gardner, Executive Vice
President - Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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/ Jeffery R. GardnerJeffery R. GardnerExecutive Vice President - Chief Financial OfficerMay 6, 2005
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ALLTEL
Corporation and will be retained by ALLTEL Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 09-11235.

#### Na’Donte Larrimore, Petitioner v. L. E. Scribner, Warden.

562 U.S. 869, 131 S. Ct. 166,

178 L. Ed. 2d 98,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6562.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 365 Fed. Appx. 858.
#### Drack v. Hamilton, Drack, In re

08/23/2016

228 MAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Cmwlth., 130 A.3d 162
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL DIXON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CORRECTIONAL CORPORATION OF

AMERICA, INC.; ACOSTA; DOSER;

WILKERSON; PHILLIP VALDEZ;

IDAHO CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-35433

D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00437-BLW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

B. Lynn Winmill, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 9, 2011** 

Portland, Oregon

Before: D.W. NELSON, THOMAS, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

FILED

MAR 11 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Daniel Dixon appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendants’

motion to dismiss Dixon’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit because Dixon failed to exhaust

his administrative remedies pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Dixon also appeals the district court’s dismissal of his

subpoena requests as moot. We affirm.

“[W]e have held that the failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies that are not

jurisdictional should be treated as a matter in abatement, which is subject to an

unenumerated [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 12(b) motion rather than a motion

for summary judgment.” Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). 

“In deciding a motion to dismiss for a failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the

court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact.” Id. at

1119-20. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal

determinations de novo. Id. at 1120. 

Defendants have produced Dixon’s grievance file, which shows that Dixon

failed to appeal the relevant grievances to the highest prison grievance authority. 

Dixon’s grievances are clearly labeled as such, and Defendants represent that the

complete file has been produced. See id. (reversing district court’s factual

determination that prisoner had failed to exhaust remedies because the evidence

did not show that the appeal record was complete or authentic). On this record, we
3

cannot say that the district court’s finding that Dixon failed to exhaust his remedies

was clearly erroneous.

Dixon argues alternatively that prison officials threatened him with

retaliation and thereby rendered further administrative remedies effectively

unavailable. The record establishes that Dixon continued to file grievances, even

regarding the prison staff, after the date of the alleged threats. The district court’s

determination that the prison staff’s conduct did not prevent Dixon from

exhausting his remedies was not clearly erroneous.

Finally, the district court’s dismissal of Dixon’s subpoena requests as moot

was proper.

AFFIRMED.
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2324

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that employees appointed

under chapters 73 and 74 of that title have protection against certain

prohibited personnel practices.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 26 (legislative day, JULY 20), 1994

Mr. ROCKEFELLER (by request) introduced the following bill; which was read

twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that

employees appointed under chapters 73 and 74 of that

title have protection against certain prohibited personnel

practices.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PROTECTION AGAINST CERTAIN PROHIBITED

4 PERSONNEL PRACTICES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 74 of

6 title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the

7 end the following:
2

•S 2324 IS

1 ‘‘§ 7427. Protection from prohibited personnel prac2 tices

3 ‘‘(a)(1) The provisions of law referred to in para4 graph (2) apply to any individual appointed as an em5 ployee of the Veterans Health Administration under chap6 ter 73 of this title or under this chapter.

7 ‘‘(2) The provisions of law referred to in paragraph

8 (1) are sections 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1221,

9 1222, and 2302 of title 5.

10 ‘‘(b) The authority of the Merit Systems Protection

11 Board and of the Office of Special Counsel to review any

12 personnel action under the authority provided for under

13 a provision of law referred to in subsection (a) shall apply

14 only to the extent specified in the provision of law.’’.

15 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

16 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting

17 after the item relating to section 7426 the following new

18 item:

‘‘7427. Protection from prohibited personnel practices.’’.

Æ
#### In the Matter of John Walden, Petitioner, v Arlene Goldberg, Respondent. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., Nonparty Respondent.

[66 NYS3d 609]

The above-named petitioner having presented an application to this Court praying for an order, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, now, upon reading and filing the papers in said proceeding, and due deliberation having been had thereon, it is unanimously ordered that the application be and the same hereby is denied and the petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Kahn and Kern, JJ.
No. 09-11395.

#### Anthony Austine Ukofia, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 878, 131 S. Ct. 191,

178 L. Ed. 2d 114,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6918.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

*115Same case below, 359 Fed. Appx. 682.
Exibit 3.1





ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT

TO THE

ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

OF



MINES MANAGEMENT, INC.



Pursuant to Title 30, Chapter 1, Idaho Code, the undersigned corporation amends its articles of incorporation as follows:



1.

The name of the corporation is Mines Management, Inc.



2.

The first two sentences of Article VI of the articles of incorporation are deleted in their entirety and replaced with the following:



ARTICLE VI

Board of Directors



The affairs of the corporation shall be conducted by the Board of Directors.  The number of directors of the corporation shall be fixed from time to time in the manner provided in the Bylaws of the corporation and may be increased or decreased from time to time in the manner provided in the Bylaws; provided, however, that the number of directors shall not be less than two (2) or more than eleven (11).  The directors shall be divided into three classes designated as Class I, Class II and Class III.  Each class shall consist, as nearly as may be possible, of one-third of the number of directors constituting the entire Board of Directors.  The term of office of the initial Class I directors will expire in 2006, the term of office of the initial Class II directors will expire in 2007 and the term of office of the initial Class III directors will expire in 2008.  Initial class assignments shall be determined by the Board of Directors.  At each annual meeting of shareholders, successors to the directors whose terms expired at that annual meeting shall be elected for a three-year term.  If the number of directors changes, any increase or decrease shall be apportioned among the classes such that the number of directors in each class shall remain as nearly equal as possible, but in no case will a decrease in the number of directors shorten the term of any incumbent director.  A director shall hold office until the annual meeting for the year in which his term expires and until his successor shall be elected and qualified, subject, however, to such directors prior death, resignation, retirement, disqualification or removal from office.

3.

The date of adoption of this amendment was June 16, 2005.



4.

This amendment was duly approved by the shareholders of the corporation as required by Title 30, Idaho Code.



Dated as of August 3, 2005



/s/ James H. Moore



Name:

James H. Moore

Title:

Chief Financial Officer
#### D.A.H., In re; E.H., In re

05/10/2016

132 EAL (2016)

Denied

No. 3011 EDA 2015
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 17-0262V 

 Filed: October 6, 2017 

UNPUBLISHED 

SHERRY BRIGGS, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES, 

 Respondent. 

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; 

Causation-In-Fact; Influenza (Flu) 

Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to 

Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) 

   

Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner. 

Colleen Clemons Hartley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 On February 23, 2017, Sherry Briggs (“petitioner”) filed a petition for 

compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. 

§300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered right 

shoulder injuries as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on October 21, 

2015. Amended Petition at Introduction, ¶11. The case was assigned to the Special 

Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 

On October 6, 2017, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes 

that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report 

at 1. Specifically, respondent states that “petitioner’s alleged right shoulder injury is 

consistent with shoulder injury related to vaccine injury (“SIRVA”), and that it was 

                                                            

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits 

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012). 
caused in fact by the flu vaccine she received on October 21, 2015.” Id. at 5. 

Respondent further agrees that no other causes for petitioner’s SIRVA were identified, 

and “records show that she suffered the sequela of her injury for more than six months 

after vaccination”. Id.

 In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Chief Special Master
January 8, 2014

CAAP-13-0000052

#### Trueman v. State

Affirmed
ACCEPTED 06-15-00085-CV SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 11/25/2015 12:19:36 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 12.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Peter A. J. Gardiner, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Zindart Limited;

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

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

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

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

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      c) disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control
      over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the
      annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the company's internal control over financial
      reporting;

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

      a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the company's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

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

/s/ Peter A. J. Gardiner
--------------------------------
Peter A. J. Gardiner
Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors

Date:  October 8, 2003
#### People v Vasquez

4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1584

denied
#### Ecker v. National R.R. Passenger Corp.; Controlled F.O.R.C.E., Inc., In re 34

04/12/2016

626 EAL (2015)

34

. Justice DONOHUE and Justice WECHT did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 90
No. 10-5472.

#### Eddie Martinez, aka Erifredo Eddie Martinez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 923, 131 S. Ct. 305,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7294.

178 L. Ed. 2d 198,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 367 Fed. Appx. 312.
No. 10-5160.

#### James C. Lawhorn, Petitioner v. Richard F. Allen, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 907, 131 S. Ct. 252,

178 L. Ed. 2d 167,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6894.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 519 F.3d 1272.
No. 09-11380.

#### Carzell Scott, Petitioner v. Illinois.

562 U.S. 877, 131 S. Ct. 188,

178 L. Ed. 2d 113,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6733.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District, denied.

Same case below, 395 Ill. App. 3d 1131, 369 Ill. Dec. 499, 986 N.E.2d 812.
# Hard work and humility guides branch chief 

/ Published Dec. 16, 2020
RICHMOND, VA, 
“Audrey is a caring and compassionate leader who acts as a role model for those around her. Her faith in her employees to carry out tasks, whether large or small, garners a work group full of confidence and drive.” 

These are the words Troy Thomas, the Materiel Planning Division chief for Defense Logistics Agency Aviation’s Planning Process Directorate, used to describe Audrey Berry in his write up nominating her for the October DLA Aviation Leadership Award. 

Berry is the chief of the division’s Original Equipment Manufacturing Branch.

“I am still feeling humbled that people see my efforts as a strong contribution to the Aviation team and warfighter support,” she said.

It’s this humility that earned Berry the award. 

“When interacting with Audrey, it’s clear she understands the individualized needs of her team and makes every effort to ensure that they feel a sense of belonging and appreciation for their hard work,” Thomas said. “By developing metrics tied to material availability with materiel planner input, the planners have a sense of ownership and motivation to meet and exceed their goals.” 

As a result of this teamwork, Thomas said materiel availability of Diamond MA (any national stock number ordered more than 500 times within a calendar year) improved from 93.72% to 98.70% and Crown Jewel MA (any NSN ordered 80 times or more within a calendar year) from 90.35% to 92.66% in 2020.

“With their focus on these team-established metrics, they realized their full potential and strive for greatness. Inspired by Audrey’s leadership, they are constantly evolving and looking at other ways to improve their organization,” Thomas said. 

Thomas said through Berry’s coordination with DLA Aviation’s strategic supplier alliance partners, her team also provided customers with 87.26% parts MA across 17 initiatives and through her constant support and encouragement, her team has provided exceptional support to both internal and external customers, reaching across various OEMs through joint steering groups to achieve greater collaboration and communication.

He said this increased interaction has paid dividends for the branch and division, both at an employee level and overall team performance. 

“For me, teamwork is key! My branch steps up to [do] anything I ask of them, my peers are always ready to share information and support to get things done,” Berry said.

“So far, the best part about the recognition has been reading the emails from all my teammates across Aviation who are virtually celebrating with me and sharing stories of how well we work together to do well! We share the same visions to get the job done.”
#### Sand Land Corp., Matter of, v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Southampton

2d Dept: 137 AD3d 1289

denied
Phone Log for Atrazine Special Review Docket 

Page 1 of 1

January 20, 2011, 4:10 PM

Melanie Biscoe of EPA/OPP called Dan Campbell of Syngenta. During the conversation, 

Dan Campbell indicated that Syngenta would submit a written request to decommission 

some Community Water Systems from the Atrazine Monitoring Program at the end of 

January 2011, along with the Atrazine and Simazine Monitoring Program data 

submissions required by the Memorandum of Agreement. 

Phone Log prepared by – Melanie Biscoe
# Farmers Market returns June 7

/ Published June 2, 2023
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
One sign that summer is just around the corner is the return of the McNamara Headquarters Complex farmers market June 7.                Employees at the McNamara Headquarters Complex can purchase fresh fruit and vegetables, bread, coffee and more during the weekly farmers markets, which will be held every Wednesday. (Photo by Chris Lynch)                            Farmers Market returns June 7                            Employees at the McNamara Headquarters Complex can purchase fresh fruit and vegetables, bread, coffee and more during the weekly farmers markets, which will be held every Wednesday. (Photo by Chris Lynch)            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Chris LynchVIRIN: 220608-D-HE260-1002

The market will be held every Wednesday 10 a.m. - 2 p.m. near the main entrance of the building.

Vendors will include the Great Harvest Bread Company, Rock Hill Honey Bee Farms, Sip Coffee and C&T Produce.

Attendance at the markets is expected to return to pre-pandemic levels, especially since many members of the workforce are back in the office on a more regular basis, said Kyra Bailey, an administrative assistant with DLA Installation Management and primary DLA farmers market event organizer.

This will be the second year the market returned since the COVID-19 pandemic, so the event feels more established to its vendors, Bailey said.

“Doing things like this to make people enjoy being back at the office [helps] increase productivity because people are happy to be here,” she said.

MWR events like the farmers market provide a morale boost, which is aligned with the DLA Strategic Plan critical capabilities element for people and culture, said Vivian d’Alelio, a management and program analyst for DLA Installation Management and farmers market alternate organizer.     

For more information about the farmers markets and other MWR events, read the biweekly HQC Bulletin and look out for posters throughout the headquarters complex building.
#### Harry W. Hecht, *Plaintiff in Error,*vs. Willis E. Comstock and Mae B. Comstock, his wife, and Gheen R. Abbott, *Defendants in Error.*

144 So. 308.

Division A.

Decision filed November 3, 1932.

*Ira C. Haycock,*of Miami, for Plaintiff in Error;

*James M. Carson*and *James B. Flaherty,*of Miami, for Defendants in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause haying heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is no error in said judgment. It is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the said judgment of the circuit court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

Buford, C.J. and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
No. 09-10079.

#### Marie Sander, Petitioner v. Greenspan & Greenspan, et al.

562 U.S. 843, 131 S. Ct. 75,

178 L. Ed. 2d 51,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5849.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York denied.

Same case below, 13 N.Y.3d 880, 893 N.Y.S.2d 831, 921 N.E.2d 598.