alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | (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, 2009 | By:                                                                                                                                                     | /s/ Cary J. Claiborne  |
|------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|
|                               |                                                                                                                                                    | Cary      J. Claiborne |
|                               | President,      Chief Executive Officer & Chief FinancialOfficer      (principal executive officer, principal financialand      accounting officer) |

----
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)   In connection with the amended Quarterly Report of Lone Mountain Mines, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Kevin Murphy, President/CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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 result of operations of the Company.    /s/ Kevin Murphy Kevin M. Murphy, President, Secretary, CEO Dated:  December 30, 2008   Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)   In connection with the amended Quarterly Report of Lone Mountain Mines, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Howard Bouch, CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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 result of operations of the Company.    /s/ Howard Bouch Howard Bouch, CFO Dated:  December 30, 2008
Amendment Number One



 Exhibit 10.38(v) 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. ONE 
  
 TO THE FORT JAMES CORPORATION 
  
 SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFIT PLAN 
  
 WHEREAS, Fort James Corporation (“Fort James”) previously adopted the Fort James Corporation Supplemental Benefit Plan (the “Plan”)
for certain of its highly compensated employees; and 
  
 WHEREAS,
Georgia-Pacific Corporation (“G-P”) acquired all of the stock of Fort James effective November 27, 2000, and, by resolution of the Board of Directors of Fort James, became the Plan Sponsor and Plan Administrator of this Plan effective as
of January 27, 2001; and 
  
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.1 of
the Plan, G-P now desires to terminate the Plan effective as of the close of business on September 30, 2001 and to distribute Participants’ accrued benefits as provided herein; 
  
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
  
 1. Effective as of the close of business on September 30, 2001, benefit
accruals under the Plan will cease and the Plan shall be terminated. 
  
 2. With respect to each Participant who is (a) an officer of Georgia-Pacific Corporation, or (b) eligible to participate in the Georgia-Pacific Corporation Supplemental Retirement Plan for Eligible Executives (the “G-P Plan”), the
present value of such Participant’s accrued benefit shall be transferred to a Supplemental Personal Account in the G-P Plan as of October 1, 2001. Such present value shall be calculated 








 
using the actuarial assumptions set forth in the Salaried Pension Plan as of September 30, 2001. The benefits payable to such Participant shall be
distributed in accordance with the terms of the G-P Plan. 
  
 3.
With respect to any other Participant, the present value of such Participant’s accrued benefit shall be paid to such Participant (or his designated beneficiaries) in a single lump sum payment as soon as administratively practicable following
the termination of the Plan. Participants who are actively employed with Fort James or G-P on October 1, 2001 also shall be entitled to a tax gross up with respect to such payment. The amount of the tax gross up shall be determined by G-P in its
discretion and shall be paid directly to the appropriate taxing authorities. 
  
 4. In no event shall any Participant’s accrued benefit under the Plan as of September 30, 2001 be decreased as a result of this amendment. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has adopted and executed this Amendment One as of the 30th day of September, 2001.

  

			
	 GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Patricia A. Barnard


	 Patricia A. Barnard, Executive Vice
 President-Human Resources

		
	 Date:
	 	 January 15, 2002
##### Form 10-Q Table of Contents

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 Quarterly Report of SeaBright Insurance Holdings, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Joseph S. De Vita,
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  
          The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: August 9, 2007

| |  |  |                                                                                                                       
| |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |  | /s/ Joseph S. De VitaJoseph S. De Vita
          Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officerand Assistant Secretary

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to SeaBright Insurance Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by SeaBright Inhsurance Holdings, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
# C_2018398EN.01000301.xml

| 5.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9116 — Morgan Stanley/VTG)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 398/05)

On 8 October 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9116. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9116. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v

. RICHARD JAMES KIRTLEY , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 15

- 0144 PRPC FILED 3

- 14

- 2017

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2008

- 180683

- 001 The Honorable Cari A. Harrison , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney ’ s Office , Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Richard James Kirtley , San Luis Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge James P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Margaret H. Downie joined.STATE v. KIRTLEY Decision of the Court

2 B E E N E , Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Richard James Kirtley petitions this C ourt for review from the summar y dismissal of his second petit ion for post

conviction relief. A jury found Kirtley guilty of four drug offenses and the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of twelve years’ imprisonment. This C ourt affirmed Kirtley’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Kirtley argues his trial counsel and his first post

- conviction relief counsel were ineffective. ¶2 We deny relief. Kirtley could have raised the claims of ineffective assistance of trial co unsel in his first post

- conviction relief proceeding in 2013. Any claim a defendant could have raised in an earlier post

- conviction relief proceeding is precluded. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). None of the excep tions under Rule 32.2(b) apply. Regarding in effective assistance of post

- conviction relief counsel, a defendant is not entitled to effective assistance of counsel in a post

- conviction relief proceeding unless the proceeding was an “ of

- right ” proceeding

. State v. Pruett , 185 Ariz. 128, 131 (App. 199 5) . Kirtley’s first proceeding was not an “of

- right” proceeding

. Finally, the trial court dismissed Kirtley’s first post

- conviction proceeding in April 2014 and Kirtley did not file his second notice of post

conviction relief until January 2015. Therefo re, his claims are also untimel y. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a). ¶3 We grant review but deny relief.
* 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. 01-40540

Conference Calendar

 

I. STEPHAN BLOCH,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

JOHN TOMBONE, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:01-CV-213

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

October 26, 2001

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

I. Stephan Bloch, federal prisoner # 66982-079, appeals from

the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition,

challenging his conviction and sentence, based on the

determination that Bloch had not demonstrated that relief under

28 U.S.C. § 2255 was inadequate. Bloch argues that his dueprocess rights were violated by the district court’s failure to

consider his claims on the merits and that his prior 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion was improperly dismissed as time-barred. 
No. 01-40540

-2-

Bloch does not make any argument that the reasons for the

district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition were

error, nor does he otherwise argue that 28 U.S.C. § 2241 relief

was available to him because 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief was

inadequate. By failing to brief any argument that the district

court’s reasons for denying his petition were error, Bloch has

waived the sole ground for appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985

F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the appeal is

frivolous and is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
Independent Auditors' Report


To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
the Smith Barney Allocation Series Inc.:

In planning and performing our audits of the financial statements
of Smith Barney Allocation Series Inc.  (the Funds) consisting of
Select High Growth Portfolio, Select Growth Portfolio and Select
Balanced Portfolio for the year ended January 31, 2002, we
considered its internal control, including control activities for
safeguarding securities, in order to determine our auditing
procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the
financial statements and to comply with the requirements of Form
N-SAR, not to provide assurance on the internal control.

The management of the Funds is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of controls.  Generally,
controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's
objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Those controls include the safeguarding of assets against
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, error or
fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any
evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to
the risk that it may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation
may deteriorate.

Our consideration of the internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in the internal control that might be
material weaknesses under standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness
is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of
the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively
low level the risk that misstatements caused by error or fraud in
amounts that would be material in relation to the financial
statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a
timely period by employees in the normal course of performing
their assigned functions.  However, we noted no matters involving
the internal control and its operation, including controls for
safeguarding securities that we consider to be material
weaknesses as defined above as of January 31, 2002.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management, the Board of Directors of the Funds, and the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not intended to be and
should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.



New York, New York
March 15, 2002
Arthur L. CAMPBELL, Petitioner v. Sherman CAMPBELL, Warden.

No. 18-9443

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 VIASPACE INC.
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 September 30, 2007
 1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: November 13, 2007
    /s/ CARL KUKKONENCarl KukkonenChief Executive OfficerDate: November 13, 2007
    /s/ STEPHEN J. MUZIStephen J. MuziChief Financial Officer
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-3759

___________ Gregory L. Walton, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, * Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: September 22, 2009 Filed: October 13, 2009

___________ Before BYE, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Gregory L. Walton appeals the district court's 1 order affirming the denial of Walton's applications for disability insu rance benefits and supplemental security income. Walton claimed disability with an onset date of April 1, 2005, due to back pain/injuries. An administrative law j udge (ALJ) determinedWalton could still

1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas , adopting the Report and Recommendations of the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.perform work that exists in significan t numbers in the national economy based upon a vocational expert's (VE's) response to a hypothetical question which took into account Walton's restrictions and limitations, including his complete inability to stoop.
In the district court, Walton gene rally argued the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, and speci fically argued the ALJ's decision should be reversed because Social Security Re gulation 96-9p states a "complete inability to stoop . . . would usually [require] a finding that the individual is disabled." (Emphasis added). Walton did not renew those two ar guments on appeal, and they are therefore deemed waived. See Jenkins v. Winter , 540 F.3d 742, 751 (8th Cir. 2008). In addition, we need not address the two new arguments 2Walton raises on appeal because they were not raised in the district court. See Misner v. Chater , 79 F.3d 745, 746 (8th Cir. 1996).

We therefore affirm the district court.

______________________________

2 On appeal, Walton contends (1) the VE's opinions were inconsistent with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) and therefore require d the ALJ to conduct a supplemental hearing or submit additional interrogatories to the VE to clarify or explain the conflict, and (2) the ALJ did not afford prope r weight to the opinions of a treating physician. Even were we to address these arguments, we would affirm because (1) the record shows the VE clarif ied the conflicts between her testimony and the DOT, and (2) the record supports the ALJ's declination to give the treating physician's opinions controlling weight. See Pirtle v. Astrue , 479 F.3d 931, 933 (8th Cir. 2007) (indicating a treating physician's opinion need not be given controlling weight when there are inconsistencies be tween the physician's notes and his or her residual functional capacity assessment); see also Thomas v. Sullivan , 928 F.2d 255, 259 (8th Cir. 1991) ("When the treating phys ician's opinion consists of nothing more than conclusory statements, the opinion is notentitled to greater weight than any other physician's opinion."). -2-
# Official Journal L 26/2 Fe

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 26 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 592 February 2016 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 26

English edition

Legislation

Volume 592 February 2016

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EU) 2016/93 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 January 2016 repealing certain acts from the Schengen acquis | 1 |
| | * | Regulation (EU) 2016/94 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 January 2016 repealing certain acts from the Schengen acquis in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters | 6 |
| | * | Regulation (EU) 2016/95 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 January 2016 repealing certain acts in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters | 9 |
| | * | Regulation (EU) 2016/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 January 2016 amending Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 laying down a scheme of control and enforcement applicable in the area covered by the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the North-East Atlantic fisheries | 13 |
| | | DIRECTIVES |
| | * | Directive (EU) 2016/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 January 2016 on insurance distribution (recast) (
  1
  ) | 19 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EU) 2016/93 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 January 2016 repealing certain acts from the Schengen acquis

1

*

Regulation (EU) 2016/94 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 January 2016 repealing certain acts from the Schengen acquis in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters

acquis

6

*

Regulation (EU) 2016/95 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 January 2016 repealing certain acts in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters

9

*

Regulation (EU) 2016/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 January 2016 amending Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 laying down a scheme of control and enforcement applicable in the area covered by the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the North-East Atlantic fisheries

13

DIRECTIVES

*

Directive (EU) 2016/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 January 2016 on insurance distribution (recast) (
  1
  )

1

19

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.