alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 8

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 Geac Computer Corporation Limited (the "Company") on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Charles S. Jones, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Donna de Winter, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to our knowledge, that:

|By:             |  |                                                                           | 
|--------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                |  | /s/CHARLES S. JONESCharles S. Jones
President and Chief Executive Officer | 
|By:             |  |                                                                           | 
|                |  | /s/DONNA DE WINTERDonna de Winter
Chief Financial Officer                 | 
|August 19, 2004 | 

---



QuickLinks
62 F.3d 1468

#### In re Oliver NORTH, et al. (Cave Bill of Costs).

Division No. 86-6.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Aug. 22, 1995.

Before: SENTELLE, Presiding, and BUTZNER and FAY, Senior Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

George Cave successfully petitioned this Court under section 593(f) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, 28 U.S.C. § 591*et seq.*(1988 and Supp. V 1993) (“the Act”) for reimbursement of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $19,912.50 that he incurred during and as a result of the Iran/Contra investigation conducted by Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh. *See In re Oliver L. North (Gregg Fee Application),*57 F.3d 1115 (D.C.Cir.1995) (per curiam). He now submits a bill of costs against the United States to recover the costs of copying his attorneys’ fees application and related filings.

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(b) provides that costs may be awarded against the United States only if authorized by law. *See, e.g., James v. Quinlan,*886 F.2d 37, 39 (3d Cir.), *cert. denied,*493 U.S. 870, 110 S.Ct. 197, 107 L.Ed.2d 151 (1989). Cave, however, cites to no provision authorizing such an award of costs. Title 28 U.S.C. section 593(f), which allowed Cave to recover attorneys’ fees as an unindicted subject of the Independent Counsel’s investigation, is silent as to bills of costs against the United States. Further, while 28 U.S.C. section 2412 allows recovery of costs against the United States to a prevailing party in a civil action against the United States, Cave’s fee application does not fall under the scope of that section as there is no civil action in which he was a prevailing party.

Sovereign immunity prevents the award of costs or fees against the United States absent specific statutory authorization. *See Cuneo v. Rumsfeld,*553 F.2d 1360, 1363 (D.C.Cir.1977). We have previously held that we must strictly construe the waiver of sovereign immunity found in section 593(f), *see In re Donovan,*877 F.2d 982, 994 (D.C.Cir.1989), and that care must be taken to avoid enlarging a statute’s waiver of immunity beyond what a fair reading of a statute requires. *In re North (Fernandez Fee Application),*37 F.3d 663, 665 (D.C.Cir.1994).

Because there is no statutory provision permitting recovery of costs against the United States in these circumstances, the bill of costs is denied.

*Judgment accordingly.*
Clear All

        28 June 2022    

                    USS Forrest Sherman (DDG 98) arrives in Taranto, Italy                 
                The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Forrest Sherman (DDG 98) arrived in Taranto, Italy for a scheduled port visit, June 27, 2022.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
exv10w1



 






Exhibit 10.1




December 20, 2005




[Insert name and address]




     Re: Acceleration of Stock Options



Dear [insert first name],




     I am pleased to advise you that, effective December 20, 2005, the Compensation Committee of
Covad Communication Group, Inc.’s (the “Company”) Board of Directors accelerated the vesting of a
major portion of your unvested stock options granted under the Company’s 1997 Stock Plan (the
“Plan”).



     The Committee also felt it appropriate to require the Company’s Section 16 officers and
directors to hold the shares acquired upon the exercise of these options until their original
vesting date, or, if earlier, the date that you cease to be a Service Provider (as that term is
defined in the Plan). This also means that you will not be able to execute a “cashless” exercise
of the accelerated options until the original vesting date.



     Feel free to call me if you have any questions.



Sincerely,




Charles Hoffman




     I acknowledge that my stock option agreements, including this amendment to my stock option
agreements, and the Company’s 1997 Stock Plan constitute the entire understanding and agreement
between me and the Company with respect to the subject matter contained herein or therein, and
there are no agreements, understandings, restrictions, representations, or warranties between me
and the Company with respect to such subject matter other than those as set forth or provided for
herein or therein. If any of my Option(s) is an Incentive Stock Option (“ISO”) whose continued
treatment as an ISO would be diminished or eliminated due to application of the $100,000 ISO limit
to this vesting acceleration, I nonetheless agree to the vesting acceleration.



ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED




__________________

[insert full name]
# C_2009249EN.01000401.xml

| 17.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/4

---

Communication from the Commission on the final percentage take-up for 2009 of rice import quotas provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1529/2007

2009/C 249/03

The final percentage take-up of each quota provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1529/2007 of 21 December 2007 opening and providing for the administration in 2008 and 2009 of import quotas for rice originating in the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP States) forming part of the Cariforum region and the overseas countries and territories (OCT) (1) for 2009 is established as follows:

1

| Origin/product | Order number | Final percentage take-up of the quota for 2009 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| States forming part of the Cariforum region (Article 1(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1529/2007)






  — | codes under CN 1006, except CN code 1006 10 10 |

Origin/product

Order number

Final percentage take-up of the quota for 2009

States forming part of the Cariforum region (Article 1(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1529/2007)

—

codes under CN 1006, except CN code 1006 10 10

09.4220

69,37 %

OCTs (Article 1(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 1529/2007)

| — | CN code 1006 |
| --- | --- |

—

CN code 1006

| (a) | Netherlands Antilles and Aruba |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Netherlands Antilles and Aruba

09.4189

16,2 %

| (b) | Least-developed OCTs |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Least-developed OCTs

09.4190

0 %

---

(1)  OJ L 348, 31.12.2007, p. 155.

1

---
Filed: July 28, 1997 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2738 (CA-96-56-MJG) Betty I. Roupe, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant - Appellee.

ORDER The Court amends its opinion filed June 19, 1997, as follows: On the cover sheet, section 3 -- the appellee is corrected to read "Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services." For the Court - By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2738 BETTY I. ROUPE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-96- 56-MJG) Submitted: June 3, 1997 Decided: June 19, 1997 Before HALL and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Betty I. Roupe, Appellant Pro Se. Perry F. Sekus, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Defendant in a Title VII discrimination case. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Roupe v. Shalala , No. CA-96-56-MJG (D. Md. Oct. 24, 1996). 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
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 41-4 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 41-4 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 2 of 2
#                                                                         NIWC Atlantic and NIWC Pacific Collaborate with University of Hawaii to Create Opportunities for Cybersecurity Students                                                                    

##### by Kris Patterson

22 May 2023

                Jericho Macabante, a junior from the University of Hawaii Mānoa and intern in the Naval Information Warfare Center and University of Hawaii (UH) System Cybersecurity Internship Program, presents an overview of his internship project to U.S. Representative Ed Case, who was invited by the UH Information and Computer Science Department to attend a poster board session May 3, during which nine interns presented their research on cybersecurity topics important to the Department of Defense (DoD), ranging from Quantum Key Distribution, Malware Attribution, and Common Information Models for DoD Defensive Cyber Operations. (Photo courtesy of University of Hawaii)            

                NIWC Atlantic and NIWC Pacific Collaborate with University of Hawaii to Create Opportunities for Cybersecurity Students            

SHARE IMAGE:

Download Image

Image Details

Photo By: Kris Patterson

VIRIN: 230503-N-D4606-007

https://www.hawaii.edu/news/2023/04/12/cybersecurity-interns-meet-hirono/

Tags:
**DoD Civilians**NAVWAR**NIWC Atlantic**NIWC Pacific**Cybersecurity**Navy**DOD**Academia
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0000786

25-MAR-2015

08:30 AM
SCWC-20-0000461

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI 

STATE OF HAWAIʻI, 

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

SASHA NARVAEZ, 

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-20-0000461; Case No. 1FFC-20-0000149)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Sasha Narvaez’s 

Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed on September 12, 2022, 

is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, September 29, 2022.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd. W. Eddins

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-20-0000461

29-SEP-2022

09:22 AM

Dkt. 10 ODAC
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                     OF AMBER RESOURCES COMPANY OF COLORADO
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Amber Resources Company of Colorado for the period ending June
30, 2005:

     (1) 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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of Amber
Resources Company of Colorado.




/s/ Roger A. Parker
Roger A. Parker
Chief Executive Officer

October 13, 2005


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Amber Resources Company of
Colorado and will be retained by Amber Resources Company of Colorado and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 3, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00216

- CR & 04

- 21

- 00217

- CR

John David BABYAK, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR9102

, 2018CR9104

H onorable Melisa C. Skinner , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief in these consolidated appeals was originally due July 29, 2021; however the court granted appellant an extension of time until August 30, 2021. Neither the brief nor a

motion for extension of time has been filed.

We therefore order appellant’s appointed counsel, Edward F. Shaughnessy, to file appellant’s the brief by Septembe r 13, 2021

.

Counsel is advised that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a motion, filed by the date the brief is due, that: (1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances warranting further delay, (2) advises the cour t of the efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the court reasonable assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline. The court does not generally consider a heavy work schedule to be

a n extraordinary circumstance.

If the brief or a conforming motion is not filed by the date ordered, this appeal may be abated for a hearing pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b)(2).

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have h ereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 3rd day of September, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
## Breadcrumb

-  Chesapeake Bay Activities 
-  Connect 

#           Social Media        

-  Home 
-  Science 
-  Data 
-  Multimedia 
-  Publications 
-  Web Tools 
-  News 
-    Connect    -  Locations 
  -  Social Media 
-  Partners 
-  About 

The USGS uses social media accounts from multiple Science Centers to share Chesapeake findings, and collaborates with the Chesapeake Bay Program Communications Team.

**

#### Bee Inventory and Monitoring Laboratory

**

#### Bee Inventory and Monitoring Laboratory 

**

#### USGS Science in New Jersey 

**

#### USGS Science in Maryland, Delaware, and Washington D.C.

**

#### USGS Science in Maryland-Delaware-District of Columbia

**

#### USGS Science in New Jersey

**

#### USGS Lower Mississippi Gulf

**

#### USGS Virginia

**

#### USGS Coastal and Ocean Science

**

#### USGS Coastal Change

**

#### Chesapeake Bay Activities

**

#### USGS Eastern Ecological Science Center

**

#### USGS Native Bee Lab

**

#### USGS Pennsylvania

**

#### USGS Science in New Jersey
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 14-2 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 14-2 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 14-2 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 14-2 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 14-2 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 5 of 5
(105 So. 922)

#### John F. BEILHART, etc., v. DRENNEN CO. DEPT. STORE et al.

(6 Div. 349.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

Oct. 22, 1925.)

Appeal from Circuit Oourt,’ Jefferson County; Romaine Boyd, Judge. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Code 1923, § '7326.

J. S. Kennedy and F. W. Davies, both of Birmingham, for appellant.

J. L. Drennen, of Birmingham, for appellees.

SOMERVILLE, J.

The case was tried by the court sitting without a jury. We cannot say that the finding of the trial court .on the issues of fact presented is contrary to the great weight of the evidence, or is clearly wrong. The judgment is affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and BOULDIN, JO., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER 

LOWER MANHATTAN DISASTER 

SITE LITIGATION 

21MC102(AKH) 

EDGAR ORELLANA, 

Plaintiff(s), 

-against100 CHURCH LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

07CV5398(AKH) 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned hereby enters an appearance as counsel 

for Defendants 100 CHURCH LLC and ZAR REALTY MANAGEMENT CORP. n/k/a 

SAPIR REALTY MANAGEMENT CORP. in the above-captioned action and all future 

correspondence and papers filed or serviced in connection with the above-captioned action are to 

be directed to the undersigned. 

Dated: New York, New York 

 November 30, 2007 

Yours etc., 

HARRIS BEACH PLLC 

Attorneys for Defendant 

100 CHURCH LLC and ZAR REALTY 

MANAGEMENT CORP. n/k/a SAPIR 

REALTY MANAGEMENT CORP.

____________/s/________________

Stanley Goos, Esq. (SG-7062) 

100 Wall Street 

New York, NY 10005 

212 687-0100 

212 687-0659 (Fax) 

Case 1:07-cv-05398-AKH Document 17 Filed 11/30/2007 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on November 30, 2007, I caused the following document 

to be electronically via the Court’s ECF system: 

1. Notice of Appearance (of Defendants 100 Church LLC and Zar Realty 

Management Corp. n/k/a Sapir Realty Management Corp.). 

The undersigned further certifies that on November 30, 2007, I caused the aforesaid 

documents to be served via First Class Mail upon the following: 

Paul Napoli, Esq. 

Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern LLP 

115 Broadway, 12th Floor 

New York, New York 10006 

Robert A. Grochow, Esq. 

Robert A. Grochow, P.C. 

233 Broadway, 5th Floor 

New York, New York 10279 

Gregory J. Cannata, Esq. 

Law Offices of Gregory J. Cannata 

233 Broadway, 5th Floor 

New York, New York 10279 

Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs 

James E. Tyrrell, Esq. 

Joseph Hopkins, Esq. 

Patton Boggs LLP 

1 Riverfront Plaza, 6th Floor 

Newark, New Jersey 07102 

Thomas Egan, Esq. 

Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer LLP 

One Liberty Plaza 

New York, New York 10006 

Liaison Counsel for the Defendants 

Dated: November 30, 2007 

 ___________/s/_______________

 Stanley Goos

Case 1:07-cv-05398-AKH Document 17 Filed 11/30/2007 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit
      99.2**








CERTIFICATE
      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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-QSB of
      Portage Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the three months ended August 31,
      2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
      I, Martine Caron, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, 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 and
      belief:





1.
      The
      Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or
      15
      (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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








Date: September
      17 ,
      2007








MARTINE
      CARON




Martine
      Caron


Chief
      Executive Officer,


President
      and Director











-1-
#### UNITED STATES v. Anthony CAMPAGNA, [ XXX XX XXXX ], Machinist’s Mate Fireman Apprentice (E-2), U. S. Naval Reserve.

NCM 78 0843.

U. S. Navy Court of Military Review.

Sentence Adjudged 7 April 1978.

Decided 29 Nov. 1978.

CAPT Joseph F. Smith, USMCR, Appel,ate Defense Counsel.

LT Richard A. Joyce, JAGC, USNR, Appellate Government Counsel.

Before CEDARBURG, FERRELL and ROOT, JJ.

FERRELL, Judge:

Appellant was convicted of conspiracy and larceny pursuant to his pleas of guilty before a judge alone general court-martial. The sentence as approved by the convening authority provides for confinement at hard labor for 1 year with all confinement over 8 months suspended, a bad-conduct discharge suspended for the period of confinement and 12 months thereafter, forfeitures of $275.00 pay per month for a period of 12 months, and reduction to E-l.

The appellant claims he is being denied regular good-time sentence credits at the rate of 10 days per month. He is being credited for 6 days per month good time in accordance with paragraph III, 0.1, DOD Instruction 1325.4 of 7 October 1968, as supplemented by SECNAV-INST 1640.9 (19 June 1972), the United States Navy Correction’s Manual. We are urged to adopt the view of Chief Judge Fletcher as expressed in a concurring opinion in *United States v. Larner,*1 M.J. 371 (C.M.A.1976). In that opinion, the Chief Judge said the progressive rates had no relation to the purpose of awarding good-time credits (rewarding good behavior) and were, therefore, without rational basis and, thus, a denial of due process of law.

The military system of good-time sentence credit, earned according to a graduated scale, is identical to the federal schedule upon which it is based. This system was considered and its constitutionality upheld by the United States District Court for Connecticut in the case of *DeSimone v. Norton,*404 F.Supp. 964 (1975). We agree with The Honorable Judge of that court when he stated:

> “ . . . The apparent Congressional rationale behind the graduated scale set forth in § 4161 is to grant effective rewards for presumably demoralized long term offenders and yet not excessively lighten the impact of incarceration for short term inmates. Thus, in the enactment of the different categories for good time credits, there is a legitimate legislative goal which rationally promotes the rehabilitation of prisoners and enhances *659the efficient management of federal penal institutions. Under these circumstances, there has been a proper exercise of Congressional authority to curtail an inmate’s term of imprisonment and to prescribe the perimeters and conditions for such curtailment.” *[DeSimone v. Norton*at 967] (Citations omitted.)

We find no merit in appellant’s assignment of error and, believing the system of good-time sentence credit utilized in the military is constitutionally valid, we affirm the findings and the sentence as approved by the convening authority.

Chief Judge CEDARBURG and Judge ROOT concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-15 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-15 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 2 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-15 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 3 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-15 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 4 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-15 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 5 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-15 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 6 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-15 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 7 of 7