alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016342EN.01001101.xml

| 17.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 342/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 342/11

---

Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 342/11)

| Member State | UK |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | Tingwall/Sumburgh-Fair Isle
  Tingwall-Foula
  Tingwall-Papa Stour
  Tingwall-Out Skerries |
| Period of validity of the contract | Two options:
  Option 1 — contract from 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018
  Option 2 — contract from 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2021 |
| Deadline for submission of applications and tenders | 30 November 2016 |
| Address from which the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained | Shetland Islands Council |
| Transport Planning Service |
| Development Services Department |
| 6 North Ness Business Park |
| Lerwick |
| Shetland |
| Scotland |
| ZE1 0LZ |
| UNITED KINGDOM |
| Tel. +44 1595744868 |
| Email: transport@shetland.gov.uk |
| Internet: www.shetland.gov.uk |

Member State

UK

Route concerned

Tingwall/Sumburgh-Fair Isle

Tingwall-Foula

Tingwall-Papa Stour

Tingwall-Out Skerries

Period of validity of the contract

Two options:

Option 1 — contract from 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018

Option 2 — contract from 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2021

Deadline for submission of applications and tenders

30 November 2016

Address from which the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained

Shetland Islands Council

Transport Planning Service

Development Services Department

6 North Ness Business Park

Lerwick

Shetland

Scotland

ZE1 0LZ

UNITED KINGDOM

Tel. +44 1595744868

Email: transport@shetland.gov.uk

Internet: www.shetland.gov.uk

---
##### 



CERTIFICATE OF
PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF
AMERICAN CELLULAR CORPORATION
  a.
    
    complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and thatb.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of
the Company at March 31, 2007, and the results of the Companys operations for the three months ended March 31,
2007.
 May 10, 2007
    
    /S/ STEVEN P. DUSSEKSteven P. DussekChief Executive Officer and Director(principal executive officer)
No. 11M60.

#### Tessera, Inc., Petitioner v. International Trade Commission, et al.

565 U.S. 1176, 132 S. Ct. 1160,

181 L. Ed. 2d 1015,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 930.

January 23, 2012.

Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record granted.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
**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 Alion Science and Technology Corporation (the“Corporation”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John M. Hughes, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
 (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Corporation.
Date: February 15, 2005      By: /s/ John M. Hughes     Name: John M. Hughes  Title: Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20- 0 302 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRANDON JAMES LEWIS TOLLIE,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including February 12 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 5 2021

01/05/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0302
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4910 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4910

   To prohibit the manufacture, sale, marketing, or distribution of 
  products or substances designed or intended to defraud a drug test.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 8, 2006

  Mr. Whitfield (for himself and Mr. Engel) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit the manufacture, sale, marketing, or distribution of 
  products or substances designed or intended to defraud a drug test.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Drug Testing Integrity 
Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) Approximately 12,000,000 employees are subject to 
        mandatory drug testing under Department of Transportation 
        regulations because they are in safety-sensitive positions. 
        These employees include truck drivers, bus drivers, pilots, 
        mass transit operators, railroad engineers, pipeline workers, 
        mariners, and related transportation industry safety-sensitive 
        personnel.
            (2) Millions of additional employers perform drug testing 
        in an effort to increase safety, reduce employee turnover, 
        tardiness, absenteeism, workers' compensation claims, accidents 
        and injuries, and health benefit utilization.
            (3) The availability of products designed to defraud a drug 
        test creates a serious public safety risk when employees in 
        safety-sensitive positions are successful in defrauding a drug 
        test.
            (4) More than 400 products designed to defraud drug tests 
        are easily obtained, in person and on the Internet.

SEC. 3. CONSUMER PRODUCT BAN.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Consumer Product Safety Commission shall, pursuant to section 
9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2058) and 
notwithstanding section 8 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2057), promulgate a 
rule declaring to be a banned hazardous product any instrument, tool, 
substance, or device designed or intended to falsify, alter, or defraud 
any lawfully administered drug test designed to detect the presence of 
chemical substances or controlled substances in the body.
                                 <all>
```
---

CERTIFICATIONS

|I, Lorrie Ann Archibald, certify that;
|--------------------------------------
|(1)                                   
|(2)                                   
|(3)                                   
|(4)                                   
|                                      
|                                      
|                                      
|(5)                                   
|                                      
|                                      

|Date:                    | August 18, 2003            
|------------------------ | ---------------------------
|                         |                            
|/s/ Lorrie Ann Archibald
|By:                      | Lorrie Ann Archibald       
|Title:                   | Principal Executive Officer

---

CERTIFICATIONS

|I, Gordon F. Burley, certify that;
|----------------------------------
|(1)                               
|(2)                               
|(3)                               
|(4)                               
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  
|(5)                               
|                                  
|                                  

|Date:                | August 18, 2003            
|-------------------- | ---------------------------
|                     |                            
|/s/ Gordon F. Burley
|By:                  | Gordon F. Burley           
|Title:               | Principal Financial Officer

---
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Mercari Communications Group, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Scott Mathis, as Principal Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his 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/ Scott MathisScott MathisChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)Date:  August 22, 2011








This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JUAN C. ACOSTA,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D15-3514

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

ETC., ET AL.,

Appellees.

________________________________/

Opinion filed August 2, 2016

Non-Final Appeal from the 

Circuit Court for Marion 

County,

Victor J. Musleh , Judge.

Juan C. Acosta, Dunnellon, pro se.

Jacqueline Costoya, and

Kelley Kronenberg, Fort Lauderdale,

for Appellee Bank of New York Mellon.

No appearance for remaining Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Decker v. Kaplus, 763 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). 

EVANDER, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Montana Twentieth Judicial District Court. County of Lake.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, -vs- GALEN L. HAWK, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-14-170

DECISION

On July 29, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to the Montana State Prison for a term of ten (10) years, for the offense of Negligent Homicide, a Felony as specified in §45-5-104, MCA. The Defendant received credit for time served on this offense of 279 days. It was further ordered that the Defendant pay $21,392.00 in restitution. This sentence is to run consecutive to the sentence in DC-13-20.

On February 4, 2016, the Defendant’s Application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court (hereafter “the Division”).

The Defendant appeared by video conferencing from the Dawson County Correctional Facility and was represented by Jennifer Streano of the Office of the State Public Defender. The State was not represented.

Before hearing the Application, the Defendant was advised that the *14Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The Defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Division. The Defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Done in open Court this 4th day of February, 2016.

DATED this 29th day of February, 2016.

Rule 12, Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana, provides that, “The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct. The sentence shall not be reduced or increased unless it is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.” (Section 46-18-904(3), MCA).

It is the unanimous decision of the members of the Division that the sentence is clearly excessive, in particular, as to the restitution provisions. The Defendant is clearly entitled to a MODIFIED sentence. Accordingly, the judges unanimously agree that Item 13.f. of the Judgment should be amended to subtract the sum of $3,500.00 from the $15,810.00 restitution figure to eliminate what would have been a double payment by the Defendant. As to the restitution awarded for counseling to the victim, the Division unanimously agrees that the victim should receive restitution for counseling up to the sum of $7,200, however, the victim should be required to provide documentation of actually incurring such counseling expenses before the Defendant should be obligated to pay for such counseling.

The remaining terms and conditions of the sentence imposed are not clearly inadequate or clearly excessive and are AFFIRMED.

Hon. Brenda Gilbert, Chairperson, Hon. Brad Newman, Member and Hon. John Warner, Member.
No. 09-7754.

#### Laurie Marie Laskey, Petitioner v. Intel Corporation.

559 U.S. 1033, 130 S. Ct. 1947,

176 L. Ed. 2d 409,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2490.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

*410Former decision, 559 U.S. 929, 130 S. Ct. 1294, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1105, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 821.
No. 09-7982.

#### In Re Lorenzo Townsend, Petitioner.

559 U.S. 935, 130 S. Ct. 1521,

176 L. Ed. 2d 153,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1074.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
Order entered March 20, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 13 - 01333 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 01334 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 01335 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 01336 - CR SHIRLEY ANN ALFARO, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 363 rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F10 - 62798 - W , F10 - 62799 - W, F10 - 62800 - W, F10 - 62801 - W 

### O RDER The Court GRANTS appellant’s March 18, 2014 motion to extend time to file her briefs. We ORDER the appellant’s brief received on March 18, 2014 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
**Exhibit
      32.2**




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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




The
      undersigned, Lijun Peng, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of CHINA
      AGRITECH, INC. (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:




1.  
      The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008
      (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




2.  
      Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.




IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 8th
      day of August, 2008.





/s/
                Lijun PengLijun
                PengChief
                Financial Officer and Treasurer(Principal
                Financial Officer)




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      China Agritech, Inc. and will be retained by China Agritech, Inc. and furnished
      to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.




The
      forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      ame nded,
      and
      is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether
      made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
      language in such filing.
No. 09-8931.

#### Billy Joe King, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1018, 130 S. Ct. 1910,

176 L. Ed. 2d 384,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2396.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.

Same case below, 983 A.2d 1064.
No. 09-8582.

#### Joe E. Teague, Jr., Petitioner v. North Carolina Department of Transportation.

559 U.S. 1012, 130 S. Ct. 1894,

176 L. Ed. 2d 375,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2724,

March 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 342 Fed. Appx. 868.
<PAGE>   1


Exhibit 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
SOLECTRON CORPORATION:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-69443, 333-46304, 333-46300, 333-40176, 333-34494, 333-92269,
333-75865, 333-85949, 333-89035, 333-75813, 333-24293, 333-02523, 333-17643,
33-58580, 33-46686, 33-57575, 33-75270 and 33-33461) on Forms S-3, S-4 and S-8
of Solectron Corporation of our report dated September 15, 2000, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Solectron Corporation and subsidiaries as of
August 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated statements of income,
stockholders' equity, comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended August 31, 2000, and the related financial
statement schedule, which report appears in the August 31, 2000, annual report
on Form 10-K of Solectron Corporation.



                                                           KPMG LLP


Mountain View, California
November 9, 2000
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3492

___________

Roberta R. Cano, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary of the *

United States Department of the * [UNPUBLISHED]

Treasury, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 24, 2009

Filed: November 30, 2009

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Roberta Cano (Cano) appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in this pro se Title VII complaint in which she claimed that she was denied

a promotion based on reverse discrimination, and that she suffered retaliation,

harassment, a hostile work environment, and constructive discharge when she

1

The Honorable Frederick R. Buckles, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of he parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
complained about the promotion. For the following reasons, we affirm the grant of

summary judgment. See Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir. 2006)

(standard of review). 

First, we find Cano failed to establish a prima facie case of reverse

discrimination, see Duffy v. Wolle, 123 F.3d 1026, 1036 (8th Cir. 1997) (burden),

and, regardless, Cano failed to create a trialworthy issue of whether her employer’s

legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for promoting another employee were pretextual,

see McCullough v. Univ. of Ark. for Med. Scis., 559 F.3d 855, 864 (8th Cir. 2009)

(burden-shifting). Second, we find Cano’s retaliation claim is without merit, because

she was not subjected to the type of materially adverse employment actions that would

deter a reasonable employee from engaging in protected activity. See Turner v.

Gonzales, 421 F.3d 688, 695-96 (8th Cir. 2005) (prima facie case of retaliation); see

also Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006) (explaining

that a plaintiff must show a reasonable employee would have found the challenged

actions materially adverse, rather than trivial harms). Similarly, Cano’s allegations

do not support a constructive-discharge claim, see MacGregor v. Mallinckrodt, Inc.,

373 F.3d 923, 928 (8th Cir. 2004) (constructive discharge), or a hostile-workenvironment claim, see Anda v. Wickes Furniture Co., 517 F.3d 526, 531-32 (8th Cir.

2008) (prima facie case of hostile work environment). 

We affirm. 

______________________________

-2-
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4728 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4728

To authorize the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to 
provide caseworker assistance to persons evacuated from their homes as 
            a result of Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 8, 2006

   Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas (for herself and Mr. Marchant) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to 
provide caseworker assistance to persons evacuated from their homes as 
            a result of Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Community Integration Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

    The purpose of this Act is to allow the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency to contract with local governments and local agencies 
to provide evacuees with a wide range of social services.

SEC. 3. CASEWORKER SUPPORT FOR EVACUEES.

    Section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5174) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsections (g), (h), and (i) as 
        subsections (h), (i), and (j), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
    ``(g) Caseworker Support for Evacuees.--
            ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        law, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency is 
        authorized to provide caseworker assistance to individuals 
        evacuated from their principal place of residence and displaced 
        to another place as a result of Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane 
        Rita in 2005, or both, and not able to return immediately to 
        their principal place of residence because of the 
        inhabitability of the structure.
            ``(2) Contracts.--The Agency may enter into contracts with 
        local governments and local agencies to provide assistance 
        under this subsection.
            ``(3) Federal share.--The Federal share of assistance under 
        this subsection shall be 100 percent of the activities for 
        which the assistance is provided.
            ``(4) Caseworker assistance defined.--In this subsection, 
        the term `caseworker assistance' includes assessing and 
        addressing an individual's needs with respect to community 
        integration, a job, school, meeting a mortgage or other loan 
        obligation, health, and mental health.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 09-8764.

#### Sheila Margaret Hayford, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 985, 130 S. Ct. 1722,

176 L. Ed. 2d 202,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1999.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 354 Fed. Appx. 720.