alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Sign Media Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Antonio F. Uccello, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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:  May 31, 2005

/s/ Antonio F. Uccello, III
Antonio F. Uccello, III
Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>


                            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 Sign Media Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Antonio F. Uccello, III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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:  May 31, 2005

/s/ Antonio F. Uccello, III
Antonio F. Uccello, III
Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Samantha Jones, Also Known as Samantha Stalter, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 67]

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J), both rendered August 7, 2003, convicting her of hindering prosecution in the second degree under indictment No. 02-00826 and conspiracy in the second degree under indictment No. 03-00425, upon her pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

*969Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant contends that her pleas of guilty were not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made because the allocutions did not satisfy the requirements of *People v Harris*(61 NY2d 9 [1983]) and because her factual allocutions failed to establish the crimes of hindering prosecution in the second degree and conspiracy in the second degree. Having failed either to move to withdraw her pleas on these grounds prior to the imposition of sentence or to vacate the judgments pursuant to CPL 440.10, the defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review the sufficiency of the plea allocutions *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; *People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636 [1983]; *People v Gaines,*11 AD3d 478 [2004]; *People v Sandson,*6 AD3d 632 [2004]; *People v Singleton,*107 AD2d 828 [1985]). Furthermore, the narrow exception to the preservation rule, as set forth in *People v Lopez (supra*at 666), is inapplicable here since there is nothing in the allocutions which would cast significant doubt on the defendant’s guilt, or otherwise call into question the voluntariness of her pleas *(see People v Harrell,*288 AD2d 489 [2001]). In any event, we find that the pleas were knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made *(see People v Harris, supra).*

The defendant’s waiver of her right to appeal precludes review of her claim that the sentence imposed was excessive *(see People v Lococo,*92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; *People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; *People v Iorio,*276 AD2d 564 [2000]). Adams, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Skelos, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RASHEED MUHAMMAD,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 200 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of November, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is GRANTED

, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all

remaining issues. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

Was the evidence insufficient to support Petitioner’s

conviction for firearms not to be carried without a license, 18
Pa.C.S. § 6106, where the jury made a specific factual finding
that Petitioner did not possess a firearm in response to a
special interrog atory to which all parties and the trial court had
agreed?
Air Force

Army

Navy/Marines

Other Defense

60%

14%

20%

6%

$1.3 $1.2

$1.5 $1.6

$1.3 $1.4 $1.4 $1.3

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

27%

8%

65%

0%

Construcon: 5%

Research and

 Development: 3%

Service: 63%

Supplies and

 Equipment: 29%

Acve Duty: 51%

Civilian: 12%

Naonal Guard/

Reserve: 37%

Sierra Nevada Corp.

M1 Support Services

AECOM

Day & Zimmermann Group

CDW Government

Cerberus Capital Management

BATTLESPACE Flight Services

Nova Group

Chugach Alaska Corp.

Pave Tech

$773.7 M

$92.8 M

$88.1 M

$58.4 M

$39.1 M

$35.3 M

$23.6 M

$20.8 M

$20.5 M

$18.6 M

Clark

Washoe

Churchill

Carson City

Mineral

White Pine

Elko

Lyon

Storey

Pershing

County

16,757

2,346

1,316

594

50

42

23

ND

ND

ND

Total*

9,913

53

883

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Acve Duty

   Military

1,637

361

299

189

49

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Civilian

 FISCAL YEAR 2017

NEVADA

   DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Con ense Con ense Contractors (M=millions)

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, Billions)

   DEFENSE PERSONNEL

Allocaons, By Type

Allocaons, By Service

$1.0 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

$1.0 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

21,175

TOTAL PERSONNEL

21,175

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Loc sonnel Loc sonnel Locaons

*Total also includes unif al also includes uniformed Na ormed Naonal Guar onal Guard and R d and Reserve units. e units.

Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquision Policy; DoD’s Military Installaons, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis;

U.S. Census Bureau; and Unitedstateszipcodes.org.

Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquision Policy; DoD’s Military Installaons, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis;

U.S. Census Bureau; and Unitedstateszipcodes.org.

72 Oĸce of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2017
AF Actve AF Guard Army Actve Army Guard Navy Actve

NEVADA

#37 #29 0.6% $778 #36 #34 #32

$2.3 B

SPENT IN STATE

1.5% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S.

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $1.3 B CONTRACT

SPENDING

21,175 NUMBER

OF PERSONNEL

$1.0 B PERSONNEL

SPENDING

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (K=thousands M=millions)

CALIFORNIA

UTAH

Washoe County

$821.9 M

Clark County

$430.7 M

Churchill County

$191.3 M

Mineral County

$62.4 M

Douglas County

$17.8 M

 Carson City

$5.4 M

Lyon County

$4.9 M

Elko County

$1.0 M

Nye County

$396.0 K

Pershing County

$34.2 K

Washoe

Clark

Churchill

Mineral Douglas

Carson City

Lyon

Elko

Nye

Pershing

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (K=thousands M=millions)

CALIFORNIA

UTAH

Clark County

$834.5 M

Churchill County

$79.9 M

Washoe County

$70.8 M

 Carson City

$27.3 M

Mineral County

$3.6 M

Storey County

$601.0 K

White Pine County

$283.1 K

Douglas County

$280.0 K

Elko County

$258.0 K

Lyon County

$249.0 K

Clark

Churchill

Washoe

Carson City

Mineral

Storey White Pine

Douglas

Elko

Lyon

Oĸce of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2017 73
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5450 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5450

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove cell phones from 
                  listed property under section 280F.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2008

  Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas (for himself, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Herger, Mr. 
   Camp of Michigan, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Tiberi, and Mr. Cantor) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove cell phones from 
                  listed property under section 280F.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Modernize Our Bookkeeping In the Law 
for Employee's Cell Phone Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF CELLULAR TELEPHONES (OR SIMILAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS 
              EQUIPMENT) FROM LISTED PROPERTY.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 280F(d)(4) of the 
Internal Revenue Code (defining listed property) is amended by 
inserting ``and'' at the end of clause (iv), by striking clause (v), 
and by redesignating clause (vi) as clause (v).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007.
                                 <all>
```
ARMSTRONG & ARMSTRONG, P.A. v. RHODES.

No. COA05-146.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed March 7, 2006.

Certification Date March 27, 2006.

Appeal from Johnston (03CVS915)

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
# Official Journal C 37/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 37 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 634 February 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 37

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 634 February 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 37/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9640 — BCP/CD&R Fund X/BrandSafway) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2020/C 37/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9477 — STEAG/OYAK/SET) (
  1
  ) | 2 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 37/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9640 — BCP/CD&R Fund X/BrandSafway) (
  1
  )

1

1

2020/C 37/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9477 — STEAG/OYAK/SET) (
  1
  )

1

2

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 37/03 | Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,00 % on 1 February 2020 — Euro exchange rates | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 37/03

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,00 % on 1 February 2020 — Euro exchange rates

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 37/04 | Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to the product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 | 4 |

V   Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2020/C 37/04

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to the product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33

4

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.5


                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                          AMENDED AND RESTATED BY-LAWS
                                      -OF-
                         INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY USA, INC.
          (a Delaware corporation hereinafter called the "Corporation")

                          Effective as of March 3, 1997

Section 3.04 of the Company's By-laws is replaced by the following new section:

               Section 3.04. Quorum. At all meetings of the Board of Directors,
          a majority of the entire Board shall be necessary and sufficient to
          constitute a quorum for the transaction of business; provided,
          however, that in order to constitute a quorum such majority must
          include at least three independent directors (or, if less, all
          independent directors then serving on the Board of Directors). For
          purposes of the foregoing, an "independent director" means a director
          that is neither an officer or employee of the Company.
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 Commerce Economic Development Administration
 AGENCY: Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
 ACTION: Notice and opportunity for public comment.
 SUMMARY: The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of the firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firms' workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
[6/6/2022 through 6/28/2022]
Firm name
Firm address
Date accepted for investigation
Product(s)Aloe Laboratories, Inc
5821 East Harrison Avenue, Harlingen, TX 78550
6/22/2022
The firm produces aloe vera and manufactures aloe vera products.Central Custom Molding, LLC
8810 Trucker Trail, Cheyenne, WY 82007
6/24/2022
The firm manufactures miscellaneous plastic parts.Buffalo Scale and Supply Co., Inc
280 Seneca Street, Buffalo, NY 14204
6/28/2022
The firm manufactures industrial scales.
 Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.8 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms. Bryan Borlik, Director.


[FR Doc. 2022-14866 Filed 7-12-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
SIGNATURE DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC. v. WRIGHT

No. COA05-293

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed March 21, 2006

Certification Date April 10, 2006

Appeal from Mecklenburg (02CVS19415).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part.
Exhibit 99.2



Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code



I, Ben W. Perks, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Navigant Consulting, Inc., certify that (i) the SEC Form 10-K as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 (Form 10-K), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information contained in said Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Navigant Consulting, Inc.



|                                                                                
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Ben W. Perks                                                             
|Ben W. Perks Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer March 13, 2003
IN RE R.G.

No. COA04-1323

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed August 16, 2005

Certification Date September 6, 2005

Appeal from Mecklenburg (04J196).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
#### In the Matter of Brian Kiesel, Also Known as Bryan Kessel, Appellant, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[800 NYS2d 860]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered September 3, 2004 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition.

*1190Petitioner commenced, this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination of respondent Deputy Commissioner of Correctional Services denying his request, under the Freedom of Information Law *(see*Public Officers Law art 6), to disclose his inmate and medical records to him. Petitioner’s request was denied based on his failure to provide appropriate documentation to verify his identity. However, the record reveals that petitioner’s identity was subsequently confirmed and his Freedom of Information Law request was processed. Thus, insofar as petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition as moot *(see Matter of Ramos v New York State Div. of Parole,*2 AD3d 936, 937 [2003]; *Matter of Covington v Cirincione,*307 AD2d 554 [2003]).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claim for costs and counsel fees *(see*Public Officers Law § 89 [4] [c]), have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
HomeNewsCaribbean Mapping Expedition

# #ScienceAtSea

# Remotely Operated Vehicle Exploration

Remotely Operated Vehicles provides scientists with "eyeballs" beneath the water to see the health of the ecosystem. Learn how researchers use this technology to help map the seafloor.

### Transcript:

Beneath the waves. It's a place most people rarely get the chance to see. In fact, we know more about the surface of the moon than we do about the ocean. Remotely Operated Vehicles—ROVs—are a key tool used to observe underwater habitats. This ROV has a 300 meter tether and HD cameras that give us access to underwater worlds like these coral reefs, that we couldn't see otherwise. Controlled from the ship, ROV pilots steer the ROV over ever-changing landscapes of coral, fish, other marine life, and threats like lionfish and marine debris. By combining ROV video with other data, scientists can piece together the puzzles of these intricate ecosystems. To learn more, visit oceanservice.noaa.gov.

###### More **Information**

          - ROV or AUV...what's the difference?
          - National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science
          - NCCOS Ocean Science Blog
          - Coral Reef Conservation Program 
          - NOAA National Geophysical Data Center's Online Water Column Sonar Data viewer 

Contact Us

            - Provide Feedback 
            -  Contact Us 
            -  Report an error 

##### Science. Service.Stewardship.

###### 						About NOS 					

            - About Us
            - NOS Program Offices
            - Media Inquiries
            - Website Acknowledgements

###### 						Resources 					

            - Site Index
            - Disclaimer
            - Freedom of Information Act
            - Accessibility

###### 						More Resources 					

            - Information Quality
            - Privacy Policy
            - NOS For Employees
            - USA.gov

          -  National Ocean Service
          -  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          -  Department of Commerce

##### 						Social 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
Exhibit 4.12


 


TEXAS
REGIONAL BANCSHARES, INC.


 


2005
NONSTATUTORY STOCK OPTION PLAN


AMENDMENT
NUMBER 1


 


The following amendment
to the Texas Regional Bancshares, Inc. 2005 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan
(the “Plan”) is adopted by the Board of Directors of Texas Regional Bancshares, Inc.
(the “Corporation”), acting pursuant to section 14 of the Plan.  This Amendment Number 1 is adopted to be
effective as of April 26, 2005.


 


Section 14 of the
Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:


 


“14.         Amendment of the Plan.  The Board of Directors of the Corporation may
from time to time alter, amend, suspend or discontinue the Plan and make rules for
its administration, except that no alteration or amendment that constitutes a
material alteration or material amendment to the Plan shall be effective unless
and until such material alteration or material amendment is approved by the
shareholders of the Corporation.  Any of
the following shall be considered a material alteration or material amendment
to the Plan: (i) any modification as to eligibility for participation
under the Plan; (ii) any increase in the number of shares under the Plan;
and (iii) any addition to or modification of the Plan to permit repricing
of options granted under the Plan.”


 


The undersigned hereby
certifies that this Amendment Number 1 to the Plan is the true and correct
Texas Regional Bancshares, Inc. 2005 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan
Amendment Number 1 as voted upon and adopted at a meeting of the Board of
Directors duly held on the 26th day of April, 2005.


 


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Carolyn Joyner

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Secretary
##### 



(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 Dex Media West LLC as of
the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
 /s/ David C. Swanson

David C. Swanson
    
    
    
    /s/ Steven M. Blondy

Steven M. BlondyChairman and Chief Executive Officer
    
    
    
    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerAugust 11, 2006
    
    
    
    August 11, 2006
SHELLA v. FOSTER.

No. COA05-342.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed June 6, 2006

Certification Date June 26, 2006

Appeal from Guilford (02CVS11260)

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.