alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Director Deferred  Compensation  Agreements,  as Amended and Restated  Effective
December 31, 1997 for Directors Frank D. Baracani, Donald G. Bell, James William
Bobe, Rahmi Soyugenc, Mary Lynn Stenftenagel, and John J. Summers, are identical
to the Agreement for Robert W. Ballard, except the following Sections:



                                                 Section
                         ------------------------------------------------------
                          1.12         1.17           4.2           5.2(a)

Frank D. Baracani                      $2,103.00       $378,540      $2,103.00
Donald G. Bell             70          $1,079.17       $194,250      $1,079.17
James William Bobe                     $2,313.25       $416,385      $2,313.25
Rahmi Soyugenc             70          $1,187.08       $213,675      $1,187.08
Mary Lynn Stenftenagel                 $6,600.17     $1,188,030      $6,600.17
John J. Summers            70            $981.08       $176,595        $981.08
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JAIM E GAR C IA-ONTIVER O S, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10442

D.C . No. 4:12-c r-02134-R C C M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Tim othy M . B urge ss, Distric t Judge , Pre siding ** Subm itte d June 12, 2014 *** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , WA RDLAW , a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Ja im e Ga rc ia -Ontive ros a

ppe a ls from the distric t

c o urt’ s judgm e nt a

nd c ha lle nge s his guilty -ple a c onvic tion a

nd 60-m onth se nte nc e for c o nspira c y to 

# FIL ED JUN 17 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** The Honora

ble Tim othy

M . B urge ss, Unite d State s Distric t Judgefor the D istric t of Ala ska , sitting by de isgna tion. *** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).posse s s with intent to distribute m arijua na , in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . § 846. Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C

alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Ga rc ia -Ontive ros’ s c ounse l ha s file d a

brie f stating tha

t the re are no grounds for re lie f, a long with a m otion to withdra w a s c ounse l of re c ord. W e have provide d Ga rc ia -Ontive ros the opportunity

to file a pro se supple m e nta l brie f. No pro se supple m e nta l brie f or answe ring brie f ha s be e n file d. Garc ia -Ontive ros ha s wa ive d his right to a

ppe a l his c onvic tion a

nd se nte nc e . Our inde pe nde nt re v i e w of the re c ord pursua nt to Pe nson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a

rgua ble issue a s to the va lidity of the wa ive r. Se eUnite d State s v . W atson , 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th C ir. 2009). W e a c c ordingly dism iss the a ppe a l. Se eid . at 988. C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. DISM I SSE D.

1 3 - 1 0 4 4 2 2
Exhibit 32.2



                       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                        18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
             SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dahua Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB/A for the quarter ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hua Meng, Chief
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:

(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.



Dated: December 11, 2006



/s/ Hua Meng
--------------------------
Hua Meng
Chief Financial Officer
(principal accounting officer)
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5503 

To amend the National Housing Act to increase the mortgage amount limits 

applicable to FHA mortgage insurance for multifamily housing located 

in high-cost areas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 25, 2006 

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California (for himself and Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the National Housing Act to increase the mortgage amount limits applicable to FHA mortgage insurance for multifamily housing located in high-cost areas. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘FHA Multifamily Loan 

5 Limit Adjustment Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MULTIFAMILY HOUSING MORTGAGE LIMITS IN 

7 HIGH COST AREAS. 

8 The National Housing Act is amended— 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5503 IH

1 (1) in sections 207(c)(3), 213(b)(2)(B)(i), 

2 221(d)(3)(ii)(II), 221(d)(4)(ii)(II), 231(c)(2)(B), 

3 and 234(e)(3)(B) (12 U.S.C. 1713(c)(3), 

4 1715e(b)(2)(B)(i), 1715l(d)(3)(ii)(II), 

5 1715l(d)(4)(ii)(II), 1715v(c)(2)(B) and 

6 1715y(e)(3)(B))— 

7 (A) by striking ‘‘140 percent’’ each place 

8 such term appears and inserting ‘‘ 170 per9 cent’’; and 

10 (B) by striking ‘‘170 percent in high cost 

11 areas’’ each time place such term appears and 

12 inserting ‘‘215 percent in high cost areas’’; and 

13 (2) in section 220(d)(3)(B)(iii)(III) (12 U.S.C. 

14 1715k(d)(3)(B)(iii)(III)) by striking ‘‘206A’’ and all 

15 that follows through ‘‘project-by-project basis’’ and 

16 inserting the following: ‘‘206A of this Act) by not to 

17 exceed 170 percent in any geographical area where 

18 the Secretary finds that cost levels so require and by 

19 not to exceed 170 percent, or 215 percent in high 

20 cost areas, where the Secretary determines it nec21 essary on a project-by-project basis’’. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice (09-022)] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of availability of inventions for licensing. 

# SUMMARY:

Patent applications on the inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing. 

# DATES:

March 11, 2009. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kaprice L. Harris, Attorney Advisor, Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field, Code 500-118, Cleveland, OH 44135; telephone (216) 433-5754; fax (216) 433-6790. 

*NASA Case No. LEW-18261-1:*                         A Software Platform for Post-Processing Waveform-Based NDE;                     

*NASA Case No. LEW-18313-1:*                         A Novel Nanoionics-Based Switch for Radiofrequency (RF) Applications;                     

*NASA Case No. LEW-18205-1:*                         Branched Rod-Coil Polyimide-Poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO) Copolymers that are Cured in the Solid State at Ambient Temperatures.                     

Dated: March 4, 2009. 

Richard W. Sherman, 

Deputy General Counsel.

 [FR Doc. E9-5115 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Berry LIVINGSTON, Defendant/Appellant.

No. ED 105502

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

FILED: May 22, 2018

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Katharine Patricia Curry, Public Defender's Office, Woodrail Centre, 1000 W. Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203.

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Shaun J. Mackelprant, Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, St. Louis, MO 65102.

Before Colleen Dolan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

*607Berry Livingston ("Defendant") appeals from the Judgment upon his conviction after a jury trial on one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute in violation of Section 195.211 RSMo. 20001,2 and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use in violation of Section 195.2333 . We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the Judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to RSMo. 2000 as amended.

2

Effective January 1, 2017, this Section has been transferred to Section 579.055.

3

Effective January 1, 2017, this Section has been transferred to Section 579.074.
Debra Longhi DIMMETTE, Plaintiff, v. Bobby J. DIMMETTE, Defendant.

No. COA19-194

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 3, 2019

DISMISSED.
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with the Annual Report of AEI  Real  Estate  Fund
XVIII Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-KSB  for
the  period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund  Management
XVIII, Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership, and
Patrick  W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management
XVIII,  Inc.,  each  certify, pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  1350,  as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of
2002, 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 Partnership.


                          /s/ ROBERT P JOHNSON
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XVIII, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              December 30, 2008



                          /s/ PATRICK W KEENE
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XVIII, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              December 30, 2008
#### In the Matter of James Adams, Petitioner, v Floyd Bennett, as Superintendent of Elmira Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

[719 NYS2d 618]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

When petitioner’s visit with his wife pursuant to the family *920reunion program (hereinafter FRP) was terminated and a search of the FRP unit produced a substance that later tested positive for marihuana, petitioner was charged with violating prison disciplinary rules prohibiting the possession of a controlled substance and requiring compliance with FRP procedures. After a tier III hearing, petitioner was found guilty of the charges. We reject petitioner’s claim that he was denied the right to call two witnesses. The Hearing Officer concluded that the testimony of the two witnesses would not be relevant, a conclusion supported by the record, and therefore we find no error in the denial of petitioner’s request *(see, Matter of James v Goord,*261 AD2d 733). Inasmuch as the correction officer who conducted the search testified that he retained possession of the substance from the time of discovery until he turned it over to the officer who tested it and the documentary evidence confirms delivery to the testing officer, there is no merit to petitioner’s claim of a break in the chain of custody *(see, Matter of Quartieri v Goord,*251 AD2d 849).

Although the Hearing Officer inadvertently taped over a portion of the testimony of one witness, we reject petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer erred in refusing to dismiss the charges. Inasmuch as the Hearing Officer offered to recall the witness in an effort to reconstruct the testimony, petitioner received all the consideration to which he was entitled *(see, Matter of McDonald v Coughlin,*217 AD2d 770). Relying on Department of Correctional Services Directive 4910, petitioner claims that he was deprived of the right to be present during the search of the FRP unit. The directive has no application where, as here, the area searched was not a general confinement housing unit *(see, Matter of Motzer v Goord,*273 AD2d 559). The determination is supported by substantial evidence and petitioner’s arguments provide no basis to disturb it.

Mercure, J. P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
CHARLESTON.

#### State *v.*A. H. Mitchell, *et al.*

(No. 6254)

Submitted September 18, 1928.

Decided September 25, 1928.

*73
      *H. W. B. Mullins,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Howard B. Lee,*Attorney General, and *W. Elliott Nefflen,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Litz, Judge:

The defendants, A. B. Mitchell and Stanford Ball (plaintiffs in error) were each tried, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $300.00 and serve two years in the penitentiary on an indictment charging them with owning, operating, maintaining, possessing and having an interest in a “moonshine still,” in violation of section 37, Chapter 32-A, Code.

Although several grounds of error are assigned, the one most earnestly pressed is that predicated upon the following instruction given for the State: ‘ ‘ The court further instructs the jury that if the jury, or any member of the jury, is satisfied with the defendants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then they can not find them not guilty.” Counsel for the State virtually admits that this instruction is erroneous, but contends, under the authority of the cases of *State*v. *Smith,*97 W. Va. 313, and *State*v. *Miller,*85 W. Va. 326, *State*v. *Hurley,*78 W. Va. 628, and *Reilly*v. *Nicholl,*72 W. Va. 189, that as the jury could not have properly found a different verdict under the evidence, the defendants will not be heard to question erroneous rulings of the trial court. Whether or not the facts justified the decisions in those cases, we do not think the facts justify the application of the rule in this case where the error is so glaring and prejudicial. The jury experienced difficulty in reaching a verdict and did so only after returning from their room into court, securing the instructions, and retiring for further deliberation. The instruction in question was plainly an invitation to the jury to find the defendants guilty. As was well said by Judge Lively in the case of *State*v. *Patko,*97 W. Va. 298, a person *74charged with crime is entitled to a fair and impartial trial which includes a correct interpretation of the law governing the questions arising therein.

We find no merit in any of the other errors assigned. For the reason stated, the judgment is reversed, the verdict set aside and a new trial awarded the defendants.

*Reversed; verdict set aside; new trial awarded.*
CERTIFICATE OF MERGER
                                     MERGING
                                  JERICAP, INC.
                                      INTO
                             GRAFF PAY-PER-VIEW INC.


         Graff Pay-Per-View Inc., a corporation organized and existing under 
and by the virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, does
hereby certify as follows:
         FIRST:  The name and states of incorporation of each of the 
constituent corporations are as follows:
                                  Jericap, Inc.
                             a New York corporation

                                       and

                             Graff Pay-Per-View Inc.
                             a Delaware corporation

         SECOND: An Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of May 7, 1992 has
been approved, adopted, certified, executed and acknowledged by each of the
constituent corporations in accordance with the requirements of Section 25(c) 
of the Delaware General Corporation Law.
         THIRD:  Graff Pay-Per-View Inc. shall be the surviving corporation 
and its name shall be unchanged.
         FOURTH:  The Certificate of Incorporation of Graff Pay-Per-View Inc. 
shall be the Certificate of Incorporation for the surviving corporation.
         FIFTH: A copy of the executed Agreement and Plan of Merger is on file
at the principal place of business of Graff Pay-Per-View Inc., 532 Broadway, 
New York, New York 10012.
         SIXTH:  A copy of the Agreement and Plan of Merger will be furnished 
by Graff Pay-Per-View Inc. on request and without cost to any stockholder of 
any constituent corporation.
         SEVENTH:  The authorized capital stock of Jericap, Inc. is 
120,000,000 shares of Common Stock, par value $.001.
         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Graff Pay-Per-View Inc. has caused this 
Certificate to be signed by Mark Graff, its President, and attested by Leland 
H. Nolan, its Secretary, on this 13th day of May, 1992.

ATTEST                                      GRAFF PAY-PER-VIEW INC.




/s/ Leland H. Nolan                         By: /s/  Mark Graff
Leland H. Nolan                                 Mark Graff, President
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Bay View Capital Corporation:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 33-30602, 33-30603, 33-36161, 33-41924, 33-95724, 33-95726, 333-37027,
333-37029, 333-37031, 333-76553, 333-76555, and 333-76557) on Form S-8 and in
the registration statements (Nos. 333-29757 and 333-64877) on Form S-3 of Bay
View Capital Corporation of our report dated January 19, 1999, except as to
footnote 24, which is as of March 11, 1999, relating to the consolidated
statement of financial condition of Bay View Capital Corporation and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998, and the related consolidated statements of
income and comprehensive income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the
year then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 1998 Annual Report on
Form 10-K/A of Bay View Capital Corporation.


/s/ KPMG LLP

San Francisco, California
July 13, 1999
<page> EXHIBIT 32.02

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 Morgan Stanley Charter
Campbell L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey D. Hahn,
Chief Financial Officer, Demeter Management Corporation, the
general partner of the Partnership, 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:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 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 Partnership.









By:    /s/Jeffrey D. Hahn

Name:		Jeffrey D. Hahn
Title:	Chief Financial Officer

Date:		November 14, 2003
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43881-43882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17568]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL9836-2; CERCLA-04-2013-3758]

Florida Petroleum Reprocessors Site, Davie, Broward County, 
Florida; Notice of Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of settlement.

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

[[Page 43882]]

SUMMARY: Under 122(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency has entered into a settlement with Jap. 
Tech, Inc. concerning the Florida Petroleum Reprocessors Site located 
in Davie, Broward County, Florida. The settlement addresses the PRP's 
Site-wide liability on an Ability-to-Pay basis.

DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until 
August 21, 2013. The Agency will consider all comments received and may 
modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received 
disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are available from Ms. Paula V. 
Painter. Submit your comments by Site name Florida Petroleum 
Reprocesssors Site by one of the following methods:
    www.epa.gov/region4/superfund/programs/enforcement/enforcement.html.
     Email: Painter.Paula@epa.gov.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street 
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887.

    Dated: May 16, 2013.
Anita L. Davis,
Chief, Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch, Superfund 
Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-17568 Filed 7-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
Exhibit
      32.2





Certification
      Pursuant to


Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Imagenetix, Inc., a Nevada corporation
      (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:





To
      my
      knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
      March 31, 2008 (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.





Dated:
                June 25, 2008
            /s/
                LOWELL W. GIFFHORNLowell
                W. GiffhornChief
                Financial Officer