alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report of Lexon Technologies, Inc. (the ACompany@) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the AReport@), I, Kenneth J. Eaken, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:



(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.





Date: May 19, 2006

/S/Kenneth J. Eaken

Principal Executive Officer

Principal Financial Officer
No. 09-1400 (R46-005).

#### The Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, et al., Petitioners v. Omnicare, Inc., et al.

562 U.S. 1027, 133 S. Ct. 21,

178 L. Ed. 2d 411,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9030.

November 5, 2010.

The petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in *412the above-entitled case was dismissed today pursuant to Rule 46.1 of the Rules of this Court.

Same case below, 583 F.3d 935.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35644-35645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17372]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

[Treasury Order Number 103-04]


Delegation of Authority Relating to the United States Enrichment 
Corporation Privatization

Dated: June 24, 1998
    1. By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the 
Treasury, including the authority in 31 U.S.C. 321(b), I hereby 
delegate to the Under Secretary for Domestic Finance the authority of 
the Secretary of the Treasury under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as 
amended by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-486, 106 Stat. 
2938), and the USEC Privatization Act (Public Law 104-134, 110 Stat. 
1321-335) (collectively, the ``Acts''), to exercise any right or power, 
make any finding or determination, or perform any duty or

[[Page 35645]]

obligation which the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to 
exercise, make, or perform under the Acts relating to the privatization 
of the United States Enrichment Corporation.
    2. This authority may be redelegated in writing to an appropriate 
subordinate official.
Robert E. Rubin,
Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 98-17372 Filed 6-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-P
No. 10-7901.

#### Emanuel Randall, Petitioner v. Louisiana.

562 U.S. 1190, 131 S. Ct. 1025,

178 L. Ed. 2d 848,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 642.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, denied.

Same case below, 25 So. 3d 1035.
No. 10-7608.

#### James Michael Forney, Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 1188, 131 S. Ct. 1018,

178 L. Ed. 2d 844,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 774.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.

Same case below, 42 So. 3d 233.
No. 10-5240.

#### Frank Adam Seigfried, Petitioner v. Lawrence Greer, Warden.

562 U.S. 1066, 131 S. Ct. 640,

178 L. Ed. 2d 485,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9362.

November 29, 2010.

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

*486Same case below, 372 Fed. Appx. 536.
No. 10-7796.

#### Danny Michael Harvey, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1161, 131 S. Ct. 969,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 141.

178 L. Ed. 2d 796,

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 392 Fed. Appx. 607.
No. 10-7345.

#### Jose DeJesus Fernandez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1096, 131 S. Ct. 808,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9571.

178 L. Ed. 2d 540,

December 6, 2010.

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

Same case below, 397 Fed. Appx. 433.
#### Edward L. Shugrue III et al., Appellants, v Lee Stahl et al., Respondents.

[65 NYS3d 709]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered June 2, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ fraudulent inducement claim, and denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissing defendants’ breach of contract and anticipatory breach of contract counterclaims, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny defendants’ motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The court erred in granting defendants summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ fraudulent inducement claim on grounds *591of absence of justifiable reliance, as defendants did not raise the argument in their summary judgment motion *(Baseball Off. of Commr. v Marsh & McLennan,*295 AD2d 73, 82 [1st Dept 2002]; *Sadkin v Raskin & Rappoport,*271 AD2d 272, 273 [1st Dept 2000]; *see Dunham v Milco Constr. Co.,*89 NY2d 425, 429-430 [1996]). Accordingly, we modify to reinstate the claim. Further, as limited by the parties’ motion papers, we find issues of fact as to whether defendants made misrepresentations regarding the status of the approvals and permits required for the renovation work that allegedly induced plaintiffs to enter into the construction contract.

“Contract damages are ordinarily intended to give the injured party the benefit of the bargain by awarding a sum of money that will, to the extent possible, put that party in as good a position as it would have been in had the contract been performed” *(Goodstein Constr. Corp. v City of New York,*80 NY2d 366, 373 [1992]). Plaintiffs claim that the schedule attached to the contract lists defendants’ estimated profit upon completion. However, it is unclear from the schedule alone whether defendants would have realized actual profits in this fixed-price contract that differ from the estimation listed. Because plaintiffs failed to meet their prima facie burden, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to defendants’ counterclaims was properly denied.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Richter, Kapnick, Kern and Moulton, JJ.
# C_2013344EN.01005001.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/50

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 23 September 2013 — Levent Redzheb Yumer v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na NAP — Varna

(Case C-505/13)

2013/C 344/87

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Administrativen sad Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Levent Redzheb Yumer

Applicant:

Defendant: Teritorialna direktsia na NAP — Varna

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union allow that only one category of persons — natural persons registered under the Zakon za danak varhu dobavenata stoynost (Law on value added tax, ‘ZDDS’) — has no legally recognised right to a tax reduction in respect of an agricultural activity? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union allow that only one category of persons — natural persons registered under the Zakon za danak varhu dobavenata stoynost (Law on value added tax, ‘ZDDS’) — has no legally recognised right to a tax reduction in respect of an agricultural activity?

| 2. | Do Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union allow the setting of different tax rates for the same type of activity depending on the legal form of the exercise of that activity and registration under the ZDDS? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union allow the setting of different tax rates for the same type of activity depending on the legal form of the exercise of that activity and registration under the ZDDS?

| 3. | Is the introduction of internal measures which result in natural persons registered under the ZDDS and as farmers being denied a tax reduction that is provided for sole traders and legal persons — although they have fulfilled their legal obligations to constitute their taxable income in the same way as sole traders and to determine their annual basis of assessment in the same way as sole traders — an infringement of the principles of legal certainty, effectiveness and proportionality? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the introduction of internal measures which result in natural persons registered under the ZDDS and as farmers being denied a tax reduction that is provided for sole traders and legal persons — although they have fulfilled their legal obligations to constitute their taxable income in the same way as sole traders and to determine their annual basis of assessment in the same way as sole traders — an infringement of the principles of legal certainty, effectiveness and proportionality?

---
# C_2014015EN.01001702.xml

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/17

---

Order of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-229/13 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Action dismissed at first instance as manifestly inadmissible - The application lodged by fax and the original subsequently received not the same - Original application lodged out of time - Action out of time - Appeal manifestly unfounded)

2014/C 15/25

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 in Case F-113/11 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

Marcuccio

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                           20691
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    19922
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1202
<INVENTORY>                                       8533
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 52676
<PP&E>                                           92185
<DEPRECIATION>                                   58274
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   94335
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             8367
<BONDS>                                              7
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         53125
<OTHER-SE>                                      123347
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     94335
<SALES>                                         150922
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                150922
<CGS>                                           101383
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   101383
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 28104
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  57
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  22558
<INCOME-TAX>                                      8448
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              14110
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     14110
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .87


</TABLE>
495 P.2d 870

#### William R. YOUNG, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, Respondent, Stearns-Roger Corporation, Respondent Employer, State Compensation Fund, Respondent Carrier.

No. 1 CA-IC 629.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department B.

April 20, 1972.

Rehearing Denied May 11, 1972.

Review Denied June 27, 1972.

*101Lawrence Ollason, Tucson, for petitioner.

William C. Wahl, Jr., Chief Counsel, Phoenix, for respondent Industrial Commission of Arizona.

Robert K. Park, Chief Counsel, State Compensation Fund, Phoenix, by George B. Morse, Tucson, for respondent Employer and respondent Carrier.

HAIRE, Chief Judge, Division 1.

The sole question presented in this review by certiorari of a hearing officer’s award in a workmen’s compensation proceeding concerns whether “traveling expenses” are to be considered in the computation of the average monthly wage. The travel expenses here involved were “zone” travel expense allowances paid pursuant to union contract. The issues raised have been discussed and decided adversely to the petitioner in this Court’s opinion rendered in Moorehead v. Industrial Commission, 16 Moorehead v. Industrial Commission, 17 Ariz.App. 96, 495 P.2d 866 (filed April 19, 1972).

The award is affirmed.

EUBANK and JACOBSON, JJ., concur.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
                
                Defense Logistics Agency
                        The Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency
                    DLA
            Search
                        Search Defense Logistics Agency:
                            Search
                    Search Defense Logistics Agency:
                        Search
    Home

    What DLA Offers
    
        Excess Property Disposal

    Document Services

    Products

    Services

    Programs

    Working With DLA
    
        Applications

    Small Business

    Federal and International Cataloging

    Defense Data Standards

    Events

    Procurement Policies

    Government Programs

    Forms

    Organizations
    
        DLA Headquarters

    DLA Aviation

    DLA Disposition Services

    DLA Distribution

    DLA Energy

    DLA Land and Maritime

    DLA Troop Support

    DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM

    DLA Europe & Africa

    DLA Indo-Pacific

    Customer Support
    
        Self Help Tools

    How to Order

    Find Your Order

    Customer Facing Offices

    Training

    Brochures

    Warfighter Support

    Customer Service Management

    Careers

    About DLA
    
        Contact Us

    Locations

    Leaders

    News

    History

    Media Gallery

    DLA Campaigns  Home
  Land and Maritime
  About
  DLA Land and Maritime Image Galleries
 DLA Land and Maritime images
 Supply Chain Alliance and Exhibition
 DLA Land and Maritime News
 Hall of Fame Ceremonies
 DSCC Activities
 DLA Land and Maritime Hall of Fame ceremonies
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (3.23 MB)
 
 DLA Distribution AMR DLA Eastern Distribution Center
 Photo Gallery
 2024 DLA Supply Chain Alliance Conference and Exhibition Image Gallery
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (3.23 MB)
 
 DLA Distribution AMR DLA Eastern Distribution Center
 Photo Gallery
 DLA Land and Maritime news
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (3.23 MB)
 
 DLA Distribution AMR DLA Eastern Distribution Center
 Photo Gallery
 DSCC activities
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (3.23 MB)
 
 DLA Distribution AMR DLA Eastern Distribution Center
 Photo Gallery
 Contact UsSite IndexStrategic PlanDLA IG HotlineFOIANo FEAR ActWhistleblower ProtectionDLA CareersImagesWebmasterEEOSection 508Public AffairsSAPRExternal Links DisclaimerDOD Information Quality GuidelinesPrivacy/SecurityUSA.govDOD Web PolicyDOD Open GovernmentPlain Language
                    Stay Connected
            
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
Agenda Date: October 8, 2015

Prepared By: John Finnell, Manager, Permitting and Engineering

Topic: Amendment to Rule 250, Stationary Gas Turbines

Action Requested:

1) Conduct a Public Hearing re garding the proposed approval of amended Rule 250,

Stationary Gas Turbines.

2) Adopt Resolution #15-09 (Atta chment #2), thereby approving amended Rule 250,

Stationary Gas Turbines, and the findings in the Staff Repor t (Attachment #1).

Discussion: Rule 250, Stationary Gas Turbines, applies to all stationary gas turbines rated 0.3

megawatts (MW) and larger. Currently, there are two facilities, Roseville Energy Park and

City of Roseville Power Plan t #2, subject to this rule.

This rule amendment was prompted by a notifi cation by the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (U.S. EPA) that Rule 250 did not meet current Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) requirements. This finding was provided as a result of the U.S. EPA’s

review of the District’s 2014 RACT SIP Analysis Report.

EPA recommended that the District add limits during startup and shutdown, update the rule

standards, and eliminate outdated references and definitions.

The most notable proposed changes are:

 The exemptions for pipeline and chemical pr ocessing gas turbines have been removed.

 References to efficiency have been removed from the rule standards, as they are no

longer required.

 Limits during start-up and shutdown periods ha ve been added for both simple cycle gas

turbines and for combined cycle gas turbines.

Fiscal Impact: The amendments do not incur any addi tional costs for the District. The

amendments are not expected to incur any new costs for existing regulated sources.

Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of Reso lution #15-09, (Attachment #2), thereby

approving amended Rule 250, Stationary Gas Turb ines, and the findings in the Staff Report

of Attachment #1.

Attachments : #1. Staff Report, Amendment to Rule 250, Stationary Gas Turbine

#2. Resolution #15-09, Approval of an Am endment of the Placer County Air

Pollution Control District’s Rule 250, Stationary Gas Turbines, and

Exhibit 1, Rule 250, Stationary Gas Turbines 

## Board Agenda Item #2

Public Hearing/Action

### ATTACHMENT #1

SUBJECT



### Staff Report: Rule 250, Stationary Gas Turbines

### ATTACHMENT #2

SUBJECT



### Resolution #15-09

Approval of an Amendment of the

Placer County Air Polluti on Control District’s

Rule 250, Stationary Gas Turbines
No. 10-6689.

#### Samuel Dartez, Petitioner v. Kansas.

562 U.S. 1142, 131 S. Ct. 907,

178 L. Ed. 2d 761,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 158.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Kansas denied.

Same case below, 209 P.3d 764.
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

No. 05-0552

IN RE  STONE & WEBSTER, INC., THE SHAW GROUP INC., AND ERNST & YOUNG LLP

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

**ORDERED:**

1.Relators’ motion for emergency temporary relief, filed July 19, 2005, is granted.   The order dated May 19, 2005, in Cause No. C-2002459, styled *Stone & Webster, Inc. v. AES Frontier, L.P., AES Wolf Hollow L.P., The AES Corporation, and Parsons Energy & Chemicals Group, Inc.*, in the 355th District Court of Hood County, Texas, is stayed pending further order of this Court.

2.The real party in interest is requested to respond to relators’ petition for writ of mandamus on or before 3:00 p.m., August 1, 2005.

Done at the City of Austin, this July 21, 2005.

Andrew Weber, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
Exhibit 3.1(i)(4)
 
 
 
 Corporation
 FIRST
 SECOND
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
 Designation Series D Preferred Stock Stated Value




---



##### 



Certain Definitions
 Common Stock
 Conversion Date Notice of Conversion provided, however
 Conversion Price
 Market Price AMEX Bloomberg
 Dividends
 Accruing Dividends Applicable Issue Date Holder Holders Accruing Dividends pari passu
 2




---



##### 



Conversion
 Conversion at the Option of the Holder Optional Conversion
 Mechanics of Conversion Series D
Preferred Stock Certificates Section 10(b)
 Delivery of Common Stock Upon Conversion. rd nd
 3




---



##### 



Section
10(b) Delivery Period DTC DTC Transfer
 No Fractional Shares.
 Conversion Disputes
 Rank pari passu Junior Securities pari passu Pari Passu Securities Senior Securities
 4




---



##### 



Liquidation Preference
 Liquidation Event
 5




---



##### 



Liquidation Preference
 Adjustments to the Conversion Price
 Stock Splits, Stock Dividends, Etc.
 Adjustment Due to Merger, Consolidation, Etc. Corporate Change Section 6(a)
 6




---



##### 



Adjustment Due to New Issuances of Equity Securities Below the Conversion Price
 Weighted Average Anti-Dilution Formula
 Effective Date Section 7(c)(i)
        Sections 7(c)(i)(E)(3) 7(c)(i)(E)(4) Section 7(c)(i)
 7




---



##### 



Section 7(c)(i) Section 7(c)(ii)
 Sections 7(c)(i)(C) 7(c)(i)(D)
 Sections 7(c)(i)(C) 7(c)(i)(D)
  8




---



##### 



Sections 7(c)(i)(E)(1) 7(c)(i)(E)(2) Section 7(c)(i)(E)(3) 7(c)(i)(E)(4)
 Definition of Additional Stock Additional Stock Section 7(c)(i)(E)
 Section 7(a)
   Section 7(c)(ii)
  9




---



##### 



2009 Purchase Agreement
  Section 7(c)
 Notice of Adjustments Section 7
 Voting Rights
 General
 Election of Directors Series D Director Nominee
 Protective Provisions
 10




---



##### 



Section 6(a) Section 7(b)
 Miscellaneous
 Cancellation of Series D Preferred Stock Section 4
 Lost or Stolen Certificates
 Status as Shareholder
 11




---



##### 



THIRD
 FOURTH
 FIFTH
 * * * * * *
 12




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 ENVIRONMENTAL TECTONICS CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania
corporationBy:
    /s/ Duane D. DeanerName:
    Duane D. DeanerTitle:
    CFO




---



##### 



NOTICE OF CONVERSION
 Series D Preferred Stock
Certificates Common Stock Corporation
 DTC Transfer
 Act
 o
    
    [In lieu of receiving the shares of Common Stock issuable pursuant to this Notice of Conversion by way of DTC Transfer, the
undersigned hereby requests that the Corporation issue and deliver to the undersigned physical certificates representing
such shares of Common Stock.]
 Date of Conversion:Conversion Price:Number of Shares of CommonStock to be Issued:
 [Holder]By:Name:Title: Address: