alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
of Chief Executive 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 Avantair, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Steven Santo, Chief Executive Officer (principal executive 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 my
knowledge:




(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.




Date:
February 16, 2010





/s/
      Steven SantoName:
                  Steven
      SantoTitle:
                  Chief
      Executive
Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

PEDRO RIVERA TOVAR, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

vs. § Civil Action No. 3:05-cv-2145-R

§

GARLAND CITY POLICE CHIEF, §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER ACCEPTS FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions and a recommendation in

this case. No objections were filed. The Court has reviewed the proposed findings, conclusions and

recommendation for plain error. Finding no error, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions

and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

 It is so ORDERED.

ENTERED: April 11, 2006.

___________________________________

JUDGE JERRY BUCHMEYER

SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION

FILED

April 11, 2006

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

 

 Case 3:05-cv-02145-R Document 9 Filed 04/11/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 24
Exhibit 10.16
**PEGASUS SOLUTIONS, INC.**
**2005 EXECUTIVE OFFICER BONUS PLAN SUMMARY**
     Effective as of March 8, 2005, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of PegasusSolutions, Inc. (the “Company”) established a bonus plan for 2005 pursuant to which the executiveofficers are eligible to receive an annual cash bonus subject to the attainment of certain Companyand individual performance criteria during the 2005 fiscal year. The amount of the annual cashbonus is based on a percentage of each executive’s annual salary, with the target amount per yearfor each particular executive ranging from 25% to 100% of the executive’s annual base salary (the“Target Bonus”). The specific percentage of the Target Bonus to be awarded an executive is basedupon a 2005 adjusted earnings per share (“adjusted EPS”) goal and the achievement of individualizedgoals specific to each executive officer, such as improving customer satisfaction, delivering keyprojects within timing and budget goals, managing and reducing certain expenditures, achievingspecific revenue goals and achieving specified growth goals with respect to certain serviceofferings (the “Individualized Targets”). A percentage of the Target Bonus is attributable to theadjusted EPS goal and each Individualized Target. Failure of the Company to achieve the adjustedEPS goal or failure of the executive to achieve the Individualized Targets could result inelimination or reduction of the bonus depending upon the percentage attributable to the unmetperformance criteria. The executive is eligible to receive a specified percentage of the TargetBonus in excess of the Target Bonus in the event the executive satisfies all of the IndividualizedTargets and the Company exceeds its adjusted EPS goal. Each of the current executive officers ofthe Company listed in the Company’s proxy statement is eligible under the bonus plan. However,there is no formal agreement with respect to each executive’s annual bonus, the payment of which isultimately discretionary as determined by the Compensation Committee. The Company uses adjustedEPS in connection with the bonus plan because it believes this measure enables a more thoroughevaluation of the Company’s current performance as compared to past performance and provides abetter baseline for assessing the Company’s future earnings expectations.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-14641

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:13-cv-00068-BAE-GRS

BLOCKER FARMS OF FLORIDA, INC., 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BUURMA PROPERTIES, LLC, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(June 13, 2016)

Before JORDAN, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-14641 Date Filed: 06/13/2016 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Blocker Farms of Florida, Inc. appeals the district court’s grant of Buurma 

Properties, LLC’s motion for summary judgment based on the affirmative defense 

of res judicata. Whether res judicata bars a claim is a question of law that we 

review de novo.

1

 Ragsdale v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 193 F.3d 1235, 1238 (11th Cir. 

1999). In Georgia, “[t]hree prerequisites must be satisfied before res judicata 

applies—(1) identity of the cause of action, (2) identity of the parties or their 

privies, and (3) previous adjudication on the merits by a court of competent 

jurisdiction.” Waldroup v. Greene Cty. Hosp. Auth., 463 S.E.2d 5, 7 (Ga. 1995); 

see also O.C.G.A. § 9-12-40. For the third prong of this test to be met, the 

judgment must be final. See O.C.G.A. § 9-12-40 (“A judgment of a court of 

competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive . . . until the judgment is reversed or set 

aside.”); Mitchell v. Mitchell, 25 S.E. 385, 386 (Ga. 1896) (“It is only a final 

judgment upon the merits which prevents further contest upon the same issue

. . . .”). 

After the district court issued its order concluding that Blocker Farms’s

claim was barred based on res judicata because the parties had previously litigated 

the issue in the Superior Court of Tattnell County, the Court of Appeals of Georgia 

vacated the superior court’s judgment and remanded the case to the superior court. 

 

1 When giving a state-court judgment preclusive effect, we apply the res judicata law of 

the state whose court rendered the judgment. Kizzire v. Baptist Health Sys., Inc., 441 F.3d 1306, 

1308 (11th Cir. 2006).

Case: 14-14641 Date Filed: 06/13/2016 Page: 2 of 3 
3

Thus, there has not been a previous adjudication on the merits by a court of 

competent jurisdiction. See O.C.G.A. § 9-12-40. Accordingly, we vacate the 

district court’s opinion and remand for further proceedings.2

VACATED AND REMANDED.

 

2 We note that the district court has the discretion to stay the proceedings pending the 

parallel state litigation under the abstention doctrine set out in Colorado River Water 

Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). Moorer v. Demopolis Waterworks & 

Sewer Bd., 374 F.3d 994, 998 (11th Cir. 2004). We express no opinion as to whether now the 

district court should exercise its discretion.

Case: 14-14641 Date Filed: 06/13/2016 Page: 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 33 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 184
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 33

        Joint resolution relating to increasing the debt limit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 14, 2021

   Mr. Schumer introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
      ordered placed on the calendar pursuant to Public Law 117-71

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
        Joint resolution relating to increasing the debt limit.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the limitation under 
section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, as most recently 
increased by Public Law 117-50 (31 U.S.C. 3101 note), is increased by 
$2,500,000,000,000.

                                                       Calendar No. 184

117th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. J. RES. 33

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

        Joint resolution relating to increasing the debt limit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           December 14, 2021

      Ordered placed on the calendar pursuant to Public Law 117-71
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICOLE MOSS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

    v.

ALL STAR DONUTS, et al. ,

Defendants.                                 /

No. C 05-01877 CW

CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The parties hereto, by their counsel, having advised the

Court that they have agreed to a settlement of this cause,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this cause be dismissed with prejudice;

provided, however, that if any party hereto shall certify to this

Court, with proof of service of a copy thereon on opposing counsel,

within 90 days from the date hereof, that the agreed consideration for

said settlement has not been delivered over, the foregoing Order shall

stand vacated and this cause shall forthwith be restored to the

calendar to be set for trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/18/06

                       CLAUDIA WILKENUnited States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01877-CW   Document 27   Filed 04/18/06   Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.2

                       CERTIFICATION OF VICE-PRESIDENT
                                 PRIDE, INC.
                      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pride, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George Powell,
Vice-President 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:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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/ George A. Powell
George A. Powell
Vice-President, Secretary and Director

February 28, 2005
Nkosi Albertie CHAMBERLAIN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-3324

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 21, 2019

Nkosi Albertie Chamberlain, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed as moot.

Wolf, Bilbrey, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
Skip to main content
          Skip to FDA Search
          Skip to in this section menu
          Skip to footer links


U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government

					Here’s how you know
          			Dot gov**The .gov means it’s official.**Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.
							      SSL**The site is secure.** The **https://** ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely. 
			U.S. Food and Drug Administration
				
        Search
            Menu
							
						Search FDA
									
									Submit search 
		Featured
							Contact FDA
	                FDA Guidance Documents
	                Recalls, Market Withdrawals and Safety Alerts
	                Press Announcements
	                Warning Letters
	                Advisory Committees
	                En Español

					Products
            Food
							Drugs
							Medical Devices
							Radiation-Emitting Products
							Vaccines, Blood, and Biologics
							Animal and Veterinary
							Cosmetics
							Tobacco ProductsTopics
            About FDA
							Combination Products
							Regulatory Information
							Safety
							Emergency Preparedness
							International Programs
							News and Events
							Training and Continuing Education
							Inspections and Compliance
							Science and ResearchInformation For
            Consumers
	            Patients
	            Industry
	            Health Professionals
	            Federal, State and Local Officials 
 In this section:

                FDA Organization Charts

FDA Organization Charts Home
          About FDA
          FDA Organization
          FDA Organization Charts
          FDA Overview Organization ChartFDA Organization Charts FDA Overview Organization Chart
  
  	
    Share
    Post
    Linkedin

    Email
    PrintFDA Organization Leadership Org Chart 2023 10 12
FDA Organization Leadership Chart 2024 (PDF - 51KB)

Text version of the organization chart



Return to FDA Organization Charts

                                                                                  Content current as of:
      01/22/2024FDA Organization Charts
 
 Footer Links
    FDA Archive
          About FDA
          Accessibility
      Visitor Information
          Website Policies / Privacy
          No FEAR Act
          Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
      FOIA
          HHS.gov
          USA.gov
    Contact FDA
      Follow FDA on Facebook
      Follow FDA on X
      Follow FDA on Instagram
      Follow FDA on LinkedIn
      View FDA videos on YouTube
      Subscribe to FDA RSS feeds
    FDA Homepage
    Contact Number
      1-888-INFO-FDA (1-888-463-6332) Back toTop
Jimmy VELASQUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-635

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 29, 2019.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Clark E. Green, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, KELLY, and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LAKEITH AMIR-SHARIF, )

# 05081644, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 3:06-CV-0143-K

) ECF

DALLAS COUNTY, et al., )

Defendants. )

ORDER ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions and

recommendation in this case on Defendants’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (doc.

134). Plaintiff filed objections, and the District Court has made a de novo review of those

portions of the findings, conclusions and recommendation to which objections were

made. The Court accepts the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge. Therefore, Defendants’ summary judgment motion is

GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Objections filed on April 23, 2007, are OVERRULED.

SO ORDERED.

Signed this 1 day of May, 2007. st

___________________________________

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:06-cv-00143-K-BF Document 178 Filed 05/01/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1013
Exhibit 13.1

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United
States Code), the undersigned officer of ING Groep N.V., a public limited company incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the
Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: March 13, 2017



/s/ R. HamersName:

Ralph HamersTitle:

Chairman of the Executive Board(Principal Executive Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ING Groep N.V. and will be retained by ING
Groep N.V. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissions or its staff upon request.
IIA 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 55 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Council on Environmental 

Quality relating to ‘‘National Environmental Policy Act Implementing 

Regulations Revisions’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 13, 2022 

Mr. SULLIVAN (for himself, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. THUNE, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. 

BARRASSO, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. DAINES, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. 

LEE, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. PAUL, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. MARSHALL, Mrs. 

BLACKBURN, Mr. TUBERVILLE, Ms. ERNST, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. SASSE, 

Mr. WICKER, Mr. HAGERTY, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. RISCH, Mr. 

ROUNDS, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Mr. SCOTT of Florida, Ms. MURKOWSKI, 

Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. ROMNEY, Mr. 

HAWLEY, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. COTTON, Mr. TILLIS, Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. 

BOOZMAN, Mr. BURR, Mr. SHELBY, Mrs. FISCHER, Mr. MORAN, Mr. 

YOUNG, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. SCOTT

of South Carolina, Mr. BRAUN, and Ms. COLLINS) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Council on Environmental Quality relating to ‘‘National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations Revisions’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 55 IS 

1 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the 

2 Council on Environmental Quality relating to ‘‘National 

3 Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations Revi4 sions’’ (87 Fed. Reg. 23453 (April 20, 2022)), and such 

5 rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Casey Lee DOOLEY v. Michael LEE

2160365

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 26, 2018 Reh. denied March 9, 2018

Affirmed.
NO. 12-14-00323-CV

IN THE

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

__________________________________________________________________

DAVID TUBB, ET AL. APPELLANTS

V.

ASPECT INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL. APPELLEES

__________________________________________________________________

APPELLEES’ NOTICE REGARDING CROSS-APPEAL

__________________________________________________________________

Appellees, Aspect International, Inc., and James Sterling, previously filed a

notice of appeal to preserve their rights to request an alteration of the trial court’s

judgment. Appellees have elected not to seek an alteration of the final judgment. 

Accordingly, they will not file a Cross-Appellants’ Brief in this case. 

1

ACCEPTED

12-14-00323-CV

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

10/8/2015 10:52:32 AM

Pam Estes

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 10/8/2015 10:52:32 AM PAM ESTES Clerk
Respectfully submitted,

M. KEITH DOLLAHITE, P.C.

5457 Donnybrook Avenue

Tyler, Texas 75703

(903) 581-2110

(903) 581-2113 (Facsimile)

keith@mkdlaw.us

/s/ Keith Dollahite

By:___________________________________

M. Keith Dollahite

 State Bar No. 05958550

TREY YARBROUGH

State Bar No. 22133500

YARBROUGH WILCOX, PLLC

100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1015

Tyler, Texas 75702

903-595-3111 office

903-595-0191 fax

Trey@yw-lawfirm.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A copy of this document was filed and served electronically on Gregory D.

Smith, Ramey & Flock, P.C., 100 East Ferguson, Suite 500, Tyler, Texas 75702,

gsmith@rameyflock.com; and Wesley Hill, P.O. Box 1231, Longview, Texas 75606,

wh@swfirm.com on October 8, 2015.

/s/ Keith Dollahite

______________________________________

© M. Keith Dollahite, P.C. 2015

2
James BURDS, Sr. v. Kristi SKIDMORE

NO. 2019-CC-0631

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 28, 2019

Denied.
Joseph Greg COLLINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2093

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 29, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Lewis, Rowe, and Makar, JJ., concur.
Case 3:05-cv-01799-L Document 9 Filed 11/30/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 39
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01799-L Document 9 Filed 11/30/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 40
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01799-L Document 9 Filed 11/30/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 41
# ITC Ctr Req List
----

----

| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  Date:      May 15, 2008             |  /s/ Daniel R.      Herndon            |   |
|-------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                      |  Daniel      R. Herndon                |   |
|                                      |  President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                      |                                        |   |
|                                      |                                        |   |
|  Date:      May 15, 2008   |  /s/ Clyde D.      Patterson           |   |
|                                      |  Clyde      D. Patterson               |   |
|                                      |  Executive Vice President              |   |
|                                      |  (principal financial officer)         |   |