alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Vegetable Crops Research: Madison, WI
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    ScientistsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Madison, Wisconsin Vegetable Crops Research People B. bee lab





- Home
- All Publications
- Outreach
- Photos
- Videos
- Bee Blog
- Pollinator Behavior and Gene Flow
- Pollinator Preferences
- Hybridization and Introgression
- Alfalfa Selfing Management
- Pollinators and Global Warming
- Other Research
- Research Projects (VCRU)
- Publications in ARIS
- Current
- Previous
- How to Assess a Hive

Photo Collagesheadline bar /ARSUserFiles/34905/Brunet Lab Photos/Field Site.png Animals of the field site: /ARSUserFiles/34905/Brunet Lab Photos/Animals.png Some fun with bees: /ARSUserFiles/34905/Brunet Lab Photos/Bees.png Tools of the trade: /ARSUserFiles/34905/Brunet Lab Photos/Equiptment and Tools.png


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### TURNER CONST. CO., Respondent, v. ÜPTEGRAFF, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 28, 1912.)

Action by the Turner Construction Company against Walter D. Uptegraff. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

SIDNEY JONES, )

)

Petitioner, )

) CAUSE NO. 3:16-cv-317-RLM-MGG

vs. )

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Sidney Jones, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition

challenging his prison disciplinary hearing in MCF 15-11-145 where a 

Disciplinary Hearing Officer at Miami Correctional Facility found him guilty of 

possession or use of a controlled substance in violation of B-202 on January 8, 

2016. As a result, he was sanctioned with the loss of 90 days earned credit time 

and demoted from Credit Class 1 to Credit Class 2. 

After Mr. Jones filed his petition, the finding of guilt and sanctions were 

vacated. The respondent has now filed a motion to dismiss because this case is 

now moot. Mr. Jones didn’t file a response and the time for doing so has passed. 

See N.D. Ind. L. Cr. R. 47-2. Because the challenged disciplinary proceeding and 

sanctions have been vacated, this case must be dismissed. See Hadley v. Holmes, 

341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003) (prisoner can challenge prison disciplinary 

determination in habeas proceeding only when it resulted in a sanction that 

lengthened the duration of his confinement). 

For these reasons, the court GRANTS the motion to dismiss (ECF 8) 

DISMISSES this case. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. 
SO ORDERED. 

ENTERED: August 11, 2017

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.

Judge

United States District Court
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6696
EUGENE CLOWERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JON OZMINT, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; COLIE RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; LEAROY CARTLIDGE, Associate Warden; PARKER, of Classification, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (2:06-cv-02530-MBS) Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 27, 2008 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. EuGene Clowers, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: EuGene Clowers appeals the district court’s order rejecting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to dismiss Clowers’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action for failure to prosecute but ultimately denying relief on Clowers’ complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Clowers v. Ozmint , No. 2:06-cv-02530-MBS (D.S.C. filed Mar. 28, 2008; entered Mar. 31, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
A photo of members of the Advisory Committee on Community Banking with Chairman Sheila C. Bair
MYL_EX10.42(b)_2014.12.31-10K


EXECUTION VERSION


Exhibit 10.42(b)


MYLAN INC.


AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE INCOME DEFERRAL PLAN


In accordance with a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors of Mylan Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (the “Company”), the transactions consummated pursuant to the Business Transfer Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 13, 2014, by and among Abbott Laboratories, an Illinois corporation, the Company and the other parties thereto, as such agreement may be amended from time to time, shall not constitute a Change in Control for any purpose of the Mylan Inc. Executive Income Deferral Plan (the “Plan”).  All other provisions of the Plan, as amended by the foregoing, shall remain in full force and effect notwithstanding the adoption of this amendment.









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this amendment as of the date indicated below.




	
			
	 
	MYLAN INC.,

	 
	by

	 
	 
	/s/ Robert J. Coury

	 
	 
	Name:   Robert J. Coury

	 
	 
	Title:   Executive Chairman

	 
	 
	Date: November 4, 2014


































































[Signature Page to Executive Income Deferral Plan Amendment]
<PAGE>


                    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


I, Lorrie Ann Archibald, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report  on  Form  10-KSB  of  Merritt Ventures Corp. for the annual period ended
December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Annual  Report  on  Form  10-KSB  fairly  presents  in all material respects the
financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Merritt  Ventures  Corp.


                             By:      /s/ Lorrie  Ann  Archibald
                                      --------------------------
                             Name:    Lorrie  Ann  Archibald

                             Title:     President and Chief Executive Officer

                             Date:     April 10,  2003
#### In the Matter of William Jackson, Respondent, v Sabrina Coleman, Appellant.

[941 NYS2d 273]

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), dated March 7, 2011, as, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition to modify a prior order of custody dated April 5, 2006, so as to award him sole custody of the subject children.

Ordered that the order dated March 7, 2011, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

“ ‘Modification of an existing custody arrangement is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in cir*763cumstances such that a modification is necessary to ensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child’ ” *(Matter of Buxenbaum v Fulmer,*82 AD3d 1223, 1223 [2011], quoting *Matter of Pignataro v Davis,*8 AD3d 487, 488 [2004]; *see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; *Matter of Skeete v Hamilton,*78 AD3d 1187, 1187-1188 [2010]). “The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances” *(Matter of Skeete v Hamilton,*78 AD3d at 1188; *see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d at 171; *Matter of Buxenbaum v Fulmer,*82 AD3d at 1223). Since weighing the factors relevant to any custody determination requires an evaluation of the credibility and sincerity of the parties involved, the hearing court’s findings are accorded deference, and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Matter of Buxenbaum v Fulmer,*82 AD3d at 1224; *Matter of Skeete v Hamilton,*78 AD3d at 1188).

Here, the Family Court’s determination that there had been a change in circumstances since the issuance of the prior order of custody, and that it was in the subject children’s best interests to award sole custody of the children to the father, is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and, thus, will not be disturbed *(see Matter of Buxenbaum v Fulmer,*82 AD3d at 1224; *Matter of Skeete v Hamilton,*78 AD3d at 1188). While this determination was not consistent with the position of the attorney for the children, that position, although entitled to some weight, was not dispositive *(see Matter of Haimovici v Haimovici,*73 AD3d 1058 [2010]). Rivera, J.E, Leventhal, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 31.1**

I, Scott A. Montgomery,certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-QSB of National Mercantile Bancorp;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

4. The small business issuer’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to thesmall business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;

 (b) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the smallbusiness issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.  The small business issuer’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small businessissuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in the smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  | November 14,  2006 |   | /s/ SCOTT A. MONTGOMERY |
|--------|--------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |               |   | Scott A. Montgomery     |
|   |               |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2049

To require certain Federal service contractors to participate in a pilot program 

for employment eligibility confirmation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 3, 2005

Mrs. BLACKBURN (for herself, Mr. CALVERT, and Mr. CULBERSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 

case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 

the committee concerned 

A BILL

To require certain Federal service contractors to participate 

in a pilot program for employment eligibility confirmation.

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 ‘‘Federal Contractor 

5 Security Act’’. 
2

•HR 2049 IH 

1 SEC. 2. REQUIRING CERTAIN FEDERAL SERVICE CONTRAC2 TORS TO PARTICIPATE IN PILOT PROGRAM. 

3 Section 402(e)(1) of the Illegal Immigration Reform 

4 and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 

5 1324a note) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(C) CERTAIN FEDERAL SERVICE CON8 TRACTORS.—The following entities shall elect to 

9 participate in a pilot program and shall comply 

10 with the terms and conditions of such an elec11 tion: 

12 ‘‘(i) A contractor who has entered into 

13 a contract with the Federal Government to 

14 which section 2(b)(1) of the Service Con15 tract Act of 1965 (41 U.S.C. 351(b)(1)) 

16 applies, and any subcontractor under such 

17 contract. 

18 ‘‘(ii) A contractor who has entered 

19 into a contract exempted from the applica20 tion of such Act by section 6 of such Act 

21 (41 U.S.C. 356), and any subcontractor 

22 under such contract.’’.

Æ
Exhibit 99.1

Certification of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of US Airways, Inc. (Company) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Report), David N. Siegel, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Neal S. Cohen, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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.

/s/ David N. Siegel                    Name: David N. Siegel
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date: November 14, 2002

/s/ Neal S. Cohen                      Name: Neal S. Cohen
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date: November 14, 2002

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Ciriaco VALENCIA, petitioner, v. Mike McDONALD, Warden.

No. 13-6390.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 10.32



Summary of Executive Officer Salary and Bonus Arrangements



The table below summarizes the current annual base salary arrangements we
have with each of our executive officers. The Compensation Committee approved the annual base salary arrangements noted in the table below. We also pay bonuses, if any, to our executive officers on an annual basis. Bonuses are generally based upon
the achievement of corporate and individual performance objectives determined or approved by our Compensation Committee. In addition to the bonus arrangements noted in the table below, all of our executive officers are eligible for discretionary
bonuses as determined from time to time by the Compensation Committee.



We have written employment agreements with each of Messrs. Niedzwiecki, Beitzel, Olson, Moffett, Schoeffler, Anderson, Goad and Katona and a copy of each such employment arrangement is filed as an exhibit to the accompanying Annual Report
on Form 10-K. The non-salary and bonus components of our compensation arrangements with those executive officers, including with respect to severance, option grants and other benefits, are described in their respective employment agreements. We do
not have employment agreements with Mr. Timon or Ms. Johnston, who are at-will employees and eligible to participate in all benefit programs that are available to our employees in general. Additional information regarding the compensation of our
executive officers can be found in Part III, Item 11 of the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K.



All of the compensation arrangements we have with our executive officers, including with respect to annual base salaries and bonuses, are reviewed and may
be modified from time to time by our Compensation Committee.



|                                                                       |  |                   |        
|---------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------- | -------
|Executive Officer                                                      |  | AnnualBase Salary
|Alan P. NiedzwieckiPresident and Chief Executive Officer               |  | $                 | 500,000
|Jeffrey P. BeitzelChief Operating Officer                              |  | $                 | 700,000
|W. Brian OlsonChief Financial Officer and Treasurer                    |  | $                 | 350,000
|Glenn D. MoffettVice President, General Manager of Operations          |  | $                 | 250,000
|Bradley J. TimonCorporate Controller                                   |  | $                 | 140,000
|Cathryn T. JohnstonDirector of Communications and Corporate Secretary  |  | $                 | 125,000
|Michael H. SchoefflerPresident of Starcraft Corporation                |  | $                 | 550,000
|Richard C. AndersonPresident of Wheel to Wheel, LLC                    |  | $                 | 550,000
|Douglass C. GoadExecutive Vice President (Operations) of Tecstar, L.P. |  | $                 | 550,000
|Joseph E. KatonaChief Financial Officer of Starcraft Corporation       |  | $                 | 140,000
#### BERMANT v. BEHN et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Action by Jacob W. Bermant against Adolph Behn, impleaded with others. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 133 N. Y. Supp. 1112.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of AMCORE
Financial, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Donald H. Wilson, as Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Donald H. Wilson   
|Donald H. Wilson       
|Chief Financial Officer
|August 9, 2006         

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to AMCORE Financial, Inc. and will
be retained by AMCORE Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.