alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


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 Quarterly Report of Marketing WorldWide, Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
Winzkowski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my
knowledge 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 result of operations of the Company.

/S/ MICHAEL WINZKOWSKI
--------------------------
Michael Winzkowski
Chief Executive Officer

May 24, 2006
106 Office of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2016

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

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

VERMONT

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

FISCAL YEAR 2016

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$78.5 MILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

4,302

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Total* Active Duty Civilians

Military

Chittenden 2,562 99 676

Washington 508 54 16

Windsor 287 ND 26

Rutland 219 ND ND

Franklin 204 ND ND

Windham 101 ND 11

Lamoille 86 ND ND

Orange 81 ND ND

Bennington 78 ND ND

Caledonia 78 ND ND

*Total also includes uniformed National Guard and Reserve units.

National Guard/

Reserve: 79%

Active Duty: 3%

Civilian: 18%

69%

1%

30%

0%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

By Type

Service: 12%

Research and 

Development: 2%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 85%

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M=millions)

General Dynamics $70.1 M

Raytheon $38.7 M

United Technologies $36.0 M

Science and Engineering Services $12.6 M

Boeing $11.0 M

New England Woodcraft $7.6 M

BAE Systems $6.1 M

Concepts ETI $4.7 M

Revision Military $3.5 M

Century International Arms $3.2 M

$0.6

$0.5 $0.5

$0.3

$0.2

$0.3

$0.2

$0.5

35%

44%

3%

18%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, Billions)

Construction: 1%
Office of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2016 107

Franklin

Chittenden

Caledonia

Addison

Rutland

Lamoille

Washington

Orange 

Windsor 

Windham

Franklin

Chittenden

Caledonia

Addison

Rutland

Bennington

Washington

Orange 

Windsor 

Windham

Chittenden County

$62.7 M

Washington County

$6.6 M

Windsor County 

$2.7 M

Rutland County

$1.6 M

Franklin County

$1.5 M

Addison County

$0.6 M

Windham County

$0.6 M

Caledonia County

$0.5 M

Orange County

$0.5 M

Lamoille County

$0.5 M

(M=millions)

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

Chittenden County

$135.1 M

Addison County

$64.4 M

Rutland County

$7.8 M

Washington County

$6.9 M

Windsor County

$6.2 M

Bennington County

$5.1 M

Franklin County

$2.7 M

Windham County

$1.3 M

Orange County

$1.2 M

Caledonia County

$1.2 M

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

#51

$0.3 B 

SPENT IN STATE

#40

1.0% OF STATE GDP

0.1%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

$498

PER RESIDENT

#45

$0.2 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

#51

4,302 NUMBER OF 

PERSONNEL

#51

$0.1 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

FISCAL YEAR 2016 VERMONT

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active
# L_2017011EN.01000101.xml

| 14.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 11/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 11/1

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2017/37

of 28 October 2016

on the signing on behalf of the European Union of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2), Article 91, Article 100(2), Article 153(2), Article 192(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5), thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 24 April 2009, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations for a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 24 April 2009, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations for a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada.

| (2) | Those negotiations have been concluded, and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States of the other part, (the ‘Agreement’) should be signed on behalf of the Union, subject to the fulfilment of the procedures required for its conclusion at a later date. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Those negotiations have been concluded, and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States of the other part, (the ‘Agreement’) should be signed on behalf of the Union, subject to the fulfilment of the procedures required for its conclusion at a later date.

| (3) | In accordance with Article 30.6(1) of the Agreement, the Agreement does not confer rights or obligations which can be directly invoked before Union or Member State courts or tribunals, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In accordance with Article 30.6(1) of the Agreement, the Agreement does not confer rights or obligations which can be directly invoked before Union or Member State courts or tribunals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one Part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other Part, is hereby authorised, subject to its conclusion.

The text of the Agreement, together with the Joint Interpretative Instrument and the related Statements and Declarations, are attached to this Decision.

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 28 October 2016.

For the Council

The President

M. LAJČÁK

---
Andrew S. MUELLER v. Denise D. MUELLER and Denise D. Mueller v. Eric Kee.

No. 675P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 2006.

Timothy M. Stokes, Charlotte, for Eric Kee.

Timothy H. Graham, Charlotte, for Andrew S. Mueller.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th day of December 2005 by Defendant (Eric Kee) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 (Petition for Writ of Certiorari), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*856"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd day of March 2006."
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 129 (Thursday, July 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 40575]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14408]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #17440 and #17441; NEW MEXICO Disaster Number NM-
00080]


Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the 
State of New Mexico

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of NEW MEXICO (FEMA-4652-DR), dated 05/04/
2022.
    Incident: Wildfires and Straight-line Winds.
    Incident Period: 04/05/2022 and continuing.

DATES: Issued on 06/30/2022.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 08/04/2022.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 02/06/2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for the State of NEW MEXICO, dated 05/04/2022, is hereby 
amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical 
damages as a result of this disaster to 08/04/2022.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Joshua Barnes,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2022-14408 Filed 7-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
II 

Calendar No. 849 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5528 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 24, 2008 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

JUNE 25, 2008 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 120 Commercial Street in Brockton, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Rocky Marciano Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ROCKY MARCIANO POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 120 Commercial Street in Brock6 ton, Massachusetts, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Rocky Marciano Post Office Building’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5528 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Rocky Marciano Post 

5 Office Building’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
Calendar No. 849 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5528 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostMarciano Post Office Building’’. Brockton, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Rocky al Service located at 120 Commercial Street in 

JUNE 25, 2008 

Reported without amendment 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
Order entered January 1 7 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 01435
- CV MANISH KUMAR KARDAM, Appellant

V. MICHELLE LYNN LOFSTR OM, Appellee On Appeal from the 417th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 417
- 55748
- 2018



### O RDER On December 18, 2018, we ordered Collin County District Clerk Lynne Finley to file an amended clerk’s record that did not disclose confidential information a n d complied with the trial court’s protective order

. T he protective order provides that “1. a ll places of employment or business addre s se s ; 2. a ll school/daycare addresses; and 3. a ll residential addresses and telephone numbers” are to be stricken from “any and all public records, including any electronic records maintained by the Clerk of the Court

. ” The protective order further provides such information shall be kept “for use only by the Court.”
Rath er than filing a redacted record that does not contain the confidential information, Ms. Finley filed a sealed record containing the confidential information and an unsealed amended record containing the remaining documents

. Because th e s ealed record does notcomply with the protective order, we STRIKE th at record as well as th e amended record . We

ORDER Ms. Finley to file , no later than January 2 3 , 2019, a single amended unsealed clerk’s
record with the confidential and sensitive information stricken

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.9 ; T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 85.007.
W e DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Finley and the parties.
/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
V 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5330 

To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain entries of bulk 

aspirin. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2008 

Mr. ROSKAM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain 

entries of bulk aspirin. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN ENTRIES OF BULK ASPIRIN. 

4 (a) LIQUIDATION OR RELIQUIDATION OF ENTRIES.— 

5 Notwithstanding sections 514 and 520 of the Tariff Act 

6 of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514 and 1520) or any other provision 

7 of law, the United States Customs and Border Protection 

8 Service shall, not later than 90 days after the date of en9 actment of this Act, liquidate or reliquidate the entries 

10 listed in subsection (b) without assessment of antidumping 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5330 IH

1 duties or interest and shall refund any antidumping duties 

2 or interest which were previously paid. 

3 (b) AFFECTED ENTRIES.—The entries referred to in 

4 subsection (a) are the following: 

Entry number Date of entry Port 

FC7–0001707 March 28, 2003 #3501—Minneapolis, 

MN 

FC7–0001702 March 24, 2003 #3501—Minneapolis, 

MN 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
exv10w1



 






Exhibit 10.1




W. Michael Long

2005 Executive Bonus Plan



For 2005, you will be eligible to receive a performance bonus based upon achievement of performance
objectives. Your bonus may be up to the following amounts:



Sixty Percent (60%) of your 2005 bonus award will be based on Corporate Financial Performance (as
outlined below). Forty Percent (40%) of your 2005 bonus award will be based on Individual
Performance Objectives (as outlined below). Your Target Bonus for 2005 is $500,000. Your Target
Bonus is your expected bonus amount assuming successful achievement of all of your performance
objectives. If you significantly exceed your performance objectives, you may receive a bonus in
excess of your Target Bonus, up to a maximum of 200% of your Target Bonus.




	 	 	 
	At Threshold Performance Level:

	 	0% of Target Bonus
	 
	 	 
	At Target Performance Level:

	 	100% of Target Bonus (60% for Corporate
Financial Performance; 40% for Individual
Performance)
	 
	 	 
	At Growth Performance Level:

	 	200% of Target Bonus (120% for Corporate
Financial Performance; 80% for Individual
Performance)





Achievement in between levels will be calculated according to a bonus formula described below.



Corporate Financial Performance Element



The Corporate Financial Performance element will be determined based on a financial matrix that
includes Cash Operating Income and Revenue components. For purposes of this Bonus Plan, “Cash
Operating Income” means Operating Income less non-cash charges and extraordinary, non-recurring
items, calculated before payment of executive bonuses. A copy of the matrix for your 2005 bonus,
as approved by the Compensation Committee, is being provided to you in connection with this Bonus
Plan.



Individual Performance Objectives



Your maximum potential bonus award for the Individual Performance element is 80% of your Target
Bonus (for extraordinary performance). Your expected bonus for the Individual Performance Element
is 40% of your Target Bonus (at acceptable satisfaction of your objectives). A copy of your
individual performance objectives is being provided to you in connection with this Bonus Plan.




36
STATE v. AUTRY.

No. COA05-839.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed March 7, 2006.

Certification Date March 27, 2006.

Appeal from Cumberland (03CRS59676)

Case without published opinion. No error.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA SOCORRO GALLEGOS

MATIAS; JOSE JIMENEZ MENDOZA,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74120

Agency Nos. A079-586-738

 A079-586-739

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 19, 2010** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Maria Socorro Gallegos Matias and Jose Jimenez Mendoza, natives and

citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order

dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their request

for a continuance and their application for cancellation of removal. Our

FILED

NOV 01 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-74120

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the

denial of a continuance, and review de novo claims of due process violations. 

Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We

deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ oral request

for a second continuance because petitioners did not demonstrate good cause. See

8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009)

(considering, among other factors, the nature of the evidence excluded as a result

of the denial of a continuance and the number of continuances previously granted). 

It follows that petitioners’ due process challenge fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d

1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring agency error for a petitioner to establish a

due process violation).

We lack jurisdiction to the extent petitioners challenge the agency’s

discretionary determination that they failed to demonstrate exceptional and

extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Mendez-Castro v.

Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
**Exhibit 32.1**
**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**
          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Dex Media West LLC (the“*Company*”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:
     (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 (the “*Report*”) fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.        Dated: August 12, 2004/s/ George Burnett   George Burnett   President and Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-10225 Conference Calendar

__________________ JOHN HENRY JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus LISA G. GARZA; E.X. MARTIN, III; BILL VANSUCKLE Defendant-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:95-CV-3134-P - - - - - - - - - - August 22, 1996 Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * John Henry Johnson, # 629320, appeals the dismissal of his suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), now § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Johnson contends that the defendants, two lawyers who represented him in a criminal trial and a private investigator, conspired to imprison him. He argues that they provided him with false information, withheld information and failed to prepare an adequate defense. We have reviewed the record and Johnson'sNo. 96-10225 -2- brief and AFFIRM the district court's dismissal for essentially the same reasons adopted by the district court. Johnson v. Garza , No. 3:95-CV-3134-P (N.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 1996). Johnson's motions are DENIED.
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Richard L. Peteka, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Apollo Investment Corporation, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Apollo Investment Corporation;



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flow of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:



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 is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; and



b) 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



c) 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 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 the financial reporting;



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



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.



|                                 
|---------------------------------
|Dated this 3rdday of August, 2005
|                                 
|/s/ Richard L. Peteka            
|Chief Financial Officer