alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32(i)

Certification

STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER

OF
ATMOSPHERIC GLOW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Atmospheric Glow Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period
ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the undersigneds knowledge:



| | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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: June 28, 2006 |  | /s/ W. Scott McDonald                     
|                    |  | W. Scott McDonald, Chief Executive Officer
|                    | 
|Date: June 28, 2006 |  | /s/ Sharon L. Draper                      
|                    |  | Sharon L. Draper, Chief Accounting Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906 and is not being filed as part of the Report
or as a separate disclosure document.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-40004

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jay Alan Fisher, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:15-CR-853-1

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jay Alan Fisher, federal prisoner # 91672-379, pled guilty to coercion 

and enticement of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). He was 

sentenced in 2016 to 120 months of imprisonment and 15 years of supervised 

release. Fisher now challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 10, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-40004 Document: 00516088745 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2021
No. 21-40004

2

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argues that the 

district court’s determination that there were no “extraordinary and 

compelling reasons” warranting a reduction was based on a clearly erroneous 

assessment of the evidence.

We review the district court’s decision to deny a prisoner’s motion 

for compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. 

Cooper, 996 F.3d 283, 286 (5th Cir. 2021). The district court concluded that 

Fisher was not entitled to an early release because his medical conditions, 

coupled with his fear of being re-infected with COVID-19, did not constitute 

an extraordinary or compelling circumstance. The district court also 

expressly found that the severity of his offense — a relevant factor for 

consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) — weighed against his early release. 

Fisher acknowledges the severity of his offense but argues that the 

district court did not consider whether the severity of the offense outweighed 

his extraordinary and compelling reasons for a reduction. He fails to show, 

though, that the district court abused its discretion in balancing the factors 

that he raised in support of his motion. See Cooper, 996 F.3d at 286.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-40004 Document: 00516088745 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/10/2021
# Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01

- 14

- 00792

- CV

Eugenia Woodard

v

.

Fortress Insurance Company and Ronnie Elmore, D.D.S.

NO. 2014

- 09985 IN THE 215TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS C OUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE

MT FEE

SUPP CLK RECORD

STATEWIDE EFILING

FILING

FILING

MT FEE

C LK RECORD $15.00

$10.00

$25.00

$20.00

$174.00

$1.00

$10.00

$30.00 03/17/2015

01/23/2015

12/23/2014

12/08/2014

12/08/2014

12/08/2014

12/03/2014

10/08/2014 PAID

E

- PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

E

- PAID

P AID ANT

APE

APE

APE

ANT

ANT

APE

A NT



### The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are $285 .00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Cou rt’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine

, Clerk o f the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my

hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, this July 1 7 , 2015

.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1070/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1070/2013 of 30 October 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1070/2013                     

# of 30 October 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 October 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
STATE of North Carolina v. Marvin Anthony CUMMINGS.

No. 14P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 19, 2006.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., for Marvin Anthony Cummings.

Christopher W. Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

Prior report: 174 N.C.App. 772, 622 S.E.2d 183.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th day of January 2006 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th day of December 2006."
WELLONTON LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. HUINS.

No. COA06-436.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed February 20, 2007.

Certification Date March 12, 2007.

Appeal from Columbus (05CVD774).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                     
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998 
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998 
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998 
<CASH>                                              28,971 
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        9,464
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                             400,574
<DEPRECIATION>                                      48,568
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     409,392
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 2
<OTHER-SE>                                         406,324
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       409,392
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    14,486
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        7,078
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      7,795
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  7,795
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         7,795
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .33
        


</TABLE>
**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 PLM Income Fund I (the “Fund”), on Form
      10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the
      Chief Financial Officer of the Manager and of the Fund, hereby certifies
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:





(1)  the
      Report of the Fund filed today 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 Fund.











/s/
      Richard K Brock


Richard
      K
      Brock


Chief
      Financial Officer of PLM Financial Services, Inc.


(Principal
      Financial Officer)


May
      11,
      2006
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.2






FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO DEED POLL INDEMNITY
This FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO DEED POLL INDEMNITY, dated July 25, 2016 (the “First Supplement”), to the Deed Poll Indemnity, dated July 1, 2010 (the “Deed Poll”), among XLIT Ltd., a Cayman Islands exempted company (the “Indemnitor”), acting unilaterally in respect of each individual who has not entered into a separate indemnification agreement with the Indemnitor but is serving as an officer, director, employee, or other executive of XL Group plc, a Irish public limited company (“Parent”) or is serving at the request of Parent as an officer, director, employee, or other executive of any other entity (including another corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or employee benefit plan).   
RECITALS:
		
	A.
	The Indemnitor entered into the Deed Poll on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth therein.


		
	B.
	The Indemnitor now desires to amend the Deed Poll as hereinafter set forth.


NOW, THEREFORE, the Indemnitor hereby declares, undertakes and agrees to amend the Deed Poll as follows:
		
	1.
	Parties.  


The Preamble of the Deed Poll is amended by replacing the name of the Parent, “XL Group plc, an Irish public limited company” with “XL Group Ltd, a Bermuda exempted company”, with effect from the date of the First Supplement and XL Group Ltd shall be the Parent for all purposes under the Deed Poll from and after the date of this First Supplement. 
		
	2.
	Definitions.


All capitalized terms used by not otherwise defined in this First Supplement shall have the respective meanings ascribed to such terms in the Deed Poll.
		
	3.
	Continuing Obligations.


Save as otherwise provided for in this First Supplement, the Deed Poll and all provisions thereof shall continue in full force and effect as the legal, valid and binding obligations of each of the parties thereto, enforceable in accordance with their terms.  The effectiveness of this First Supplement shall not amend or modify the rights of any Indemnitee existing prior to the execution hereof.
		
	4.
	Law and Jurisdiction.


This First Supplement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the Cayman Islands.











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Supplement has been duly executed by the Indemnitor and shall take effect on the date first above written.
XLIT Ltd.


By:        
Name:        
Title:
84 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by Territory, FY 2022

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions, B = billions) 

GlaxoSmithKline $1.6 B

Booz Allen Hamilton $205.6 M

CACI $177.6 M

Walsh Group $157.7 M

Environmental Chemical Corp. $145.4 M

Premix, Inc. $79.9 M

Sauer Holdings, Inc. $76.0 M

General Dynamics $75.6 M

US Foods Holding $73.3 M

Conti Federal Services, LLC $69.4 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

NORTH CAROLINA

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$7.6 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

137,146

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Cumberland 46,607 10,220 628 2,153 59,608

Onslow 35,006 3,876 142 365 39,389

Craven 5,078 4,900 150 20 10,148

Wayne 4,162 777 208 1,441 6,588

Wake 470 760 1,272 2,314 4,816

Mecklenburg 228 449 1,522 945 3,144

Guilford 51 128 491 1,010 1,680

New Hanover 14 317 170 215 716

Rowan ND 70 183 288 ND

Caldwell 333 29 150 0 512

Construction: 9% Research and

Development: 3%

Service: 42%

Supplies and

Equipment: 46%

Active Duty: 69%

Civilian: 16%

National Guard: 8%

Reserve: 7%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

53%

23%

4%

19%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

50%

38%

7%

4%

$2.6 $2.5 $2.8

$3.9

$4.6

$6.1

$3.9

$5.6

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22

#14 #25 2.4% $1,255 #21 #11 #4 #6

$13.4 B SPENT 

IN STATE

1.8% OF 

STATE GDP

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER 

RESIDENT

$5.6 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

137,146 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$7.6 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

$248.4 M GRANT 

SPENDING
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2022 85

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS

Gaston

NORTH CAROLINA FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions) (M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2022

Durham

Cumberland

Onslow

Craven

Wake

Guilford

Mecklenburg

Brunswick

Wayne

Gaston

(M = millions, B = billions)

$1.7 B

$1.4 B

$978.0 M

$411.8 M

$183.8 M

$140.3 M

$90.4 M

$83.6 M

$81.4 M

$80.6 M

Cumberland

Onslow

Craven

Wayne

Wake

Mecklenburg

Guilford

New Hanover

Durham

Brunswick

$4.2 B

$1.6 B

$592.7 M

$345.4 M

$181.5 M

$118.0 M

$45.3 M

$39.8 M

$25.4 M

$21.0 M

Guilford

Durham

Wake

Guilford

Durham

Wake

Wayne

Wayne

Mecklenburg

Mecklenburg

Cumberland

Cumberland

Brunswick

Craven

Onslow

New Hanover 

Craven

Onslow

Brunswick
##### 



Exhibit 31 (b)
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and
the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants fourth fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
    /s/ John A. Marazza
 35
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6773

JAMES EUGENE VENABLE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

J. M. JABE, Warden; J. A. SMITH, JR., Regional

Director; P. A. TERRANGI, Deputy Warden; W. S.

COPELAND; C. TILLERY, Counselor; DR. MARSHALL;

MR. LORD; K. HAMLIN, Nurse; G. L. BASS, Deputy

Warden,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CA-95-841)

Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 24, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Eugene Venable, Appellant Pro Se. Lance Bradford Leggitt,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia;

David Ernest Boelzner, WRIGHT, ROBINSON, OSTHIMER & TATUM, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing

several of the many Defendants from this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)

action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the

order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only

over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ.

P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541

(1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We deny Appellant's

motion for general relief and 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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEC FORM
10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-15-1999
<CASH>                                          53,482
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  132,209
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,676
<INVENTORY>                                     28,997
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               200,007
<PP&E>                                       1,344,105
<DEPRECIATION>                                 309,420
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,438,851
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          684,677
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           902
<OTHER-SE>                                     414,944
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,438,851
<SALES>                                        120,327
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               435,109
<CGS>                                          105,647
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  421,938
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,898
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,150
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,022
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,621
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (599)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (599)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>