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



EXHIBIT 31.1
 
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused
such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under
our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principals;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
  By:     /s/ Nigel JamesNigel James
President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM RADNOR
HOLDINGS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-25-1998
<CASH>                                           5,325
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,219
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     32,775
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                77,489
<PP&E>                                         199,677
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,197
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 276,662
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,545
<BONDS>                                        189,051
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,311
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   276,662
<SALES>                                        234,729
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               234,729
<CGS>                                          166,177
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  166,177
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,027
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,920
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,407
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,513
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,513
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-10963

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TRINIDAD DURON, also known as Trini,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:00-CR-477-2-X

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

June 18, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Trinidad Duron (“Duron”) appeals the district court’s

sentencing following the jury conviction for conspiracy to

possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine and

possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking

crime. Duron contends that his sentence violates Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), because the factors used to increase

his sentence were not submitted to the jury. 
No. 01-10963

-2-

Duron’s sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum, and

therefore Apprendi is inapplicable. See United States v. Keith,

230 F.3d 784, 787 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1182

(2001). 

Duron’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Hong Kong

                        On July 14, 2020, by Executive Order 13936, the President declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701*et seq.*) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the situation with respect to Hong Kong.                    

The situation with respect to Hong Kong, including recent actions taken by the People's Republic of China to fundamentally undermine Hong Kong's autonomy, continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared on July 14, 2020, must continue in effect beyond July 14, 2021. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13936 with respect to the situation in Hong Kong.

                        This notice shall be published in the                         *Federal Register*                         and transmitted to the Congress.                    

[FR Doc. 2021-14806

Billing code 3295-F1-P
##### 



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

In connection with the Annual Report of IPC Acquisition Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Timothy Whelan, 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, as amended; and

2.     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

By:
    
    /s/ Timothy WhelanTimothy WhelanChief Financial OfficerDecember 24, 2003
EXHIBIT 21.1



NEXTMEDIA OPERATING. INC.

REGISTRANTS SUBSIDIARIES

AT DECEMBER 31, 2003



|                                  |  |                              
|--------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Subsidiary                        |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|NM Licensing LLC                  |  | Delaware                     
|NextMedia Franchising, Inc.       |  | Delaware                     
|NextMedia Outdoor, Inc.           |  | Delaware                     
|NextMedia Outdoor LLC             |  | Delaware                     
|Crickett, Ltd.                    |  | Pennsylvania                 
|NextMedia Northern Colorado, Inc. |  | Delaware
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6

WILLIE H. BREWER and 7 ANNA NITA BREWER, 8 Plaintiffs-Appellees, 9

v. NO. 29,688 10 TADEUSZ NIEMYJSKI, 11 Defendant-Appellant. 12

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY 13 John W. Pope, District Judge 14 Steider & Associates, P.C. 15 Timothy D. Steider 16 Albuquerque, NM 17 for Appellees 18 Tadeusz Niemyjski 19 Meadow Lake, NM 20 for Appellant 21 MEMORANDUM OPINION 22 WECHSLER, Judge. 232 Defendant Tadeusz Niemyjski appeals the district court’s judgment ordering 1 him to vacate real property and to pay damages, costs, and attorney fees. On 2 September 1, 2009, this Court filed a notice of proposed summary disposition 3 proposing to affirm the district court. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition 4 to summary disposition, which we have gi ven due consideration. We affirm the 5 district court. 6 Defendant argues that it was error for the district court to allow Plaintiffs Willie 7 H. and Anna Nita Brewer to sue him as indi viduals rather than as trustees of the 8 Brewer Family Trust. Rule 1-017(A) NMRA provides: “Every action shall be 9 prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest; but [a] trustee of an express trust 10 . . . may sue in that person’s own name without joining the party for whose benefit the 11 action is brought.” 12 “Interpretation of both a court rule and a statute are questions of law that we 13 review de novo on appeal.”State v. Romero , 2006-NMCA-126, ¶ 5, 140 N.M. 524, 14 143 P.3d 763, aff’d, 2007-NMSC-030, 141 N.M. 733, 160 P.3d 914. “In interpreting 15 a Supreme Court rule of procedure, we l ook first to the rule’s plain language.” Gates 16 v. State, Taxation & Revenue Dept. , 2008-NMCA-023, ¶ 10, 143 N.M. 446, 176 P.3d 17 1178. “If the rule is unambiguous, we give effect to its language and refrain from 183 further interpretation.” In re Michael L. , 2002-NMCA- 076, ¶ 9, 132 N.M. 479, 50 1 P.3d 574. “[The rules of civil procedure] shall be construed and administered to 2 secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.” Rule 1- 3 001(A) NMRA. 4 We conclude that the language of Rule 1-017(A) is unambiguous, and thus the 5 Brewers, who are trustees of an express trust, could sue in their own names without 6 specifying their capacity as trustees. Acco rdingly, we affirm the district court. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

_______________________________ 9 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 10 WE CONCUR: 11

_______________________________ 12 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge 13

_______________________________ 14 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 15
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 839 

To ban the sale of certain synthetic drugs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 14, 2011 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To ban the sale of certain synthetic drugs. 

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 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the 

5 ‘‘Combating Designer Drugs Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT. 

7 Schedule I of section 202(c) of the Controlled Sub8 stances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)) is amended in subsection 

9 (c) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(18) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4- 

11 ethylphenyl)ethanamine (2C-E). 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 839 IS

1 ‘‘(19) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4- 

2 methylphenyl)ethanamine (2C-D). 

3 ‘‘(20) 2-(4-Chloro-2,5- 

4 dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-C). 

5 ‘‘(21) 2-(4-Iodo-2,5- 

6 dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-I). 

7 ‘‘(22) 2-[4-(Ethylthio)-2,5- 

8 dimethoxyphenyl]ethanamine (2C-T-2). 

9 ‘‘(23) 2-[4-(Isopropylthio)-2,5- 

10 dimethoxyphenyl]ethanamine (2C-T-4). 

11 ‘‘(24) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C12 H). 

13 ‘‘(25) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-nitro14 phenyl)ethanamine (2C-N). 

15 ‘‘(26) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-(n)- 

16 propylphenyl)ethanamine (2C-P).’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD 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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 2629-014]

                    a.                     *Date and Time of Meeting:*                     August 25, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time.                

                    b.                     *FERC Contact:*                     Steve Kartalia at                     *stephen.kartalia@ferc.gov*                     or (202) 502-6131.                

                    c.                     *Purpose of Meeting:*                     On May 24, 2021, in a filing labeled privileged, the Village of Morrisville (Morrisville) requested a meeting with Commission staff to receive guidance on its pending application to relicense the Morrisville Hydroelectric Project No. 2629, including potential amendments to the license application or the current license. The conference call will provide Morrisville with the opportunity to discuss potential amendments with Commission staff.                

                    d.                     *Proposed Agenda:*                     (1) Introduction of participants; (2) Commission staff explains purpose of the meeting; (3) Morrisville discusses its potential amendments and seeks guidance from Commission staff; (4) Meeting participants discuss questions and topics raised by Morrisville; and (5) Commission staff concludes the meeting.                

e. A summary of the meeting will be prepared and filed in the Commission's public file for the project.
      ( print page 37144)    
                    f. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to participate by phone. If interested, please contact Steve Kartalia at                     *stephen.kartalia@ferc.gov*                     or (202) 502-6131, by August 23, 2021, to receive a link and invitation to the conference call.                

Dated: July 8, 2021.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021-14944 Filed 7-13-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

TYRONE ANDREWS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.  No. 02-2289

R. W. ELKINS,

Defendant-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.

William L. Osteen, District Judge.

(CA-01-584-1)

Submitted: March 20, 2003

Decided: April 10, 2003

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Tyrone Andrews, Appellant Pro Se. Isaac T. Avery, III, Special Deputy Attorney General, Patricia A. Duffy, NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Tyrone Andrews appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant Elkins’ motion for summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(2000) action. Andrews raises only one issue in his informal brief. See

4th Cir. R. 34(b) (pro se appellants may obtain appellate review of

only those issues explicitly raised in their informal briefs). Relying on

the initial pretrial conference order, Andrews maintains that the district court should not have granted Elkins’ motion for summary judgment because the motion was filed out of time and the district court

led him to believe that he did not need to respond to Elkins’ motion.

We find this claim without merit given that an order subsequent to the

initial pretrial conference extended the discovery period and Andrews

was given specific notice by the district court, pursuant to Roseboro

v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), that failure to respond to

Elkins’ motion for summary judgment could lead to dismissal of his

case. Therefore, Andrews’ argument is simply belied by the record.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court.* See Andrews v.

Elkins, No. CA-01-584-1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 24, 2002). 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

*To the extent that Andrews also appeals the magistrate judge’s April

17, 2002, order pertaining to discovery, we find no abuse of discretion

and also affirm that order. Vodrey v. Golden, 864 F.2d 28, 32 (4th Cir.

1988) (a district court is permitted wide latitude in controlling the course

and scope of discovery, subject to abuse of discretion on appeal). 

2 ANDREWS v. ELKINS
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
 Northeast Area
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        
                Northeast Area Cities

                    Washington, D.C.
                            Newark, Delaware
                            Boston, Massachusetts
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BHNRC)
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BARC)
                            Frederick, Maryland
                            Orono, Maine
                            Geneva, New York
                            Ithaca, New York
                            University Park, Pennsylvania
                            Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania
                            Kearneysville, West Virginia
                            Leetown, West Virginia
                            Burlington, Vermont


                    Civil Rights & EEO Policy StatementsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Docs SH&E







Standard Operating Proceduresheadline bar The following links take you to standard operating procedures developed for tasks which contain hazards to ARS employees and the environment. Biosafety SOP's developed at ERRC Construction SOP's  DNA Extraction by CsCl/Ethidium Bromide SOP Ethidium Bromide SOP Ethidium Bromide SOP (FDWSRU) SOP's for Stabilization of Explosive Materials


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
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 Amincor, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2013 (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, 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, as amended; and

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



|                     |  |  |  |                             
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------
|Date: April 15, 2014 |  |  |  | /s/ John R. Rice, III       
|                     |  |  |  | John R. Rice, III, President
```

EXHIBIT 32

            STATEMENT REQUIRED BY 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 AMERICARE HEALTH SCAN,
INC. (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, DR.
JOSEPH P. D'ANGELO, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify 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)    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
       respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
       Company.

/s/ Dr. Joseph P. D'Angelo
--------------------------
    DR. JOSEPH P. D'ANGELO

November 12, 2003
```
#### HUNT, Appellant, v. RACICH, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by Robert Hunt against Jacob Racich. C. J. Hardy, for appellant. J. V. Bouvier, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed.