alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

Solely for the purposes of
complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the undersigned Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Jilco Industries, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the
Company for the quarter ended October 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: December 13, 2007



|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|                                                           
|/s/ Martha Kretzmer                                        
|Martha Kretzmer                                            
|Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
#### DEREK ALVIN McCALL, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 8200

September 17, 1975

540 P.2d 95

*Morgan D. Harris,*Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General; *George E. Holt,*District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Convicted of burglary, robbery, second degree kidnapping, rape, and infamous crime against nature, appellant appeals his conviction and an order denying his motion for new trial.

*557At trial, garments worn by appellant and prosecutrix were admitted without objection into evidence for identification purposes. During deliberations, the jury asked whether they could consider a substance on certain garments as evidence of sexual intercourse, even though it had not been pointed out at trial. The court Informed counsel that it proposed to answer this question by instructing the jury: “The garments are in evidence.”

Appellant’s counsel not only failed to object to this instruction, but agreed to it. The failure to object or to request special instruction to the jury precludes appellate consideration. State v. Fouquette, 67 Nev. 505, 221 P.2d 404 (1950); Clark v. State, 89 Nev. 392, 513 P.2d 1224 (1973); Cook v. State, 77 Nev. 83, 359 P.2d 483 (1961).

Appellant attempts to cast the jury’s actions as “misconduct.” In light of appellant’s agreement to the instruction given by the court, we deem this contention without merit.

Affirmed.
Pre-Hearing Statement

Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

Expire: 01/31/2027

This form will be used by OWCP to refer the claim for a formal hearing. Persons are not required to respond to this 

collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 

1. Employee's name (First, middle initial, last) OWCP No. Carrier No.

2. Name, address and phone number of party on whose behalf this form is submitted: 3. Name, address and phone number of filing party's representative:

Telephone No. Telephone No.

4. Briefly state the facts of the claim:

5. State the issues on which the parties have reached agreement:

6. State the issues you will present for resolution at formal hearing:

7. List the names of witnesses who will testify in person on your behalf at formal hearing. Also list reports that are to be submitted in lieu of live testimony:

8. List all exhibits, other than reports listed in item 7 above, you intend to submit at the formal hearing. (Use separate sheet or sheets if necessary).

9. Estimate total hours needed for your 10. If an interpreter is required, state language:

witnesses to testify:

11. Indicate the city of your preference for formal hearing:

Note: Any other matters pertinent to scheduling should be explained on a separate sheet attached to this form.

12. Type or print name of person completing form. 13. Signature of person completing form: 14. Date (Mo., day, year):

Public Burden Statement 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a

valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 minutes per response, including time for

reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of

information. Use of this form is optional, however furnishing the information is required in order to obtain and/or retain benefits (20 CFR 702.317). Send 

comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room S-3524, Washington, D.C. 20210, and reference the OMB Control Number. 

DO NOT SEND COMPLETED FORMS TO THIS OFFICE.

Form LS-18

Rev. Dec. 2023

OMB No. 1240-0036

Submit form to the OWCP/DFELHWC Central Mail Receipt site at the following address: 

U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs 

Division of Federal Employees', Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation 

400 West Bay Street, Room 63A, Box 28 

Jacksonville, FL 32202 

Or upload directly to the case file using the 

Secure Electronic Access Portal (SEAPortal) 

(Preferred Method) 

Access the SEAPortal directly at: 

https://seaportal.dol.gov/portal
Document Headings

                    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 Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - 21 CFR Chapter I
          - [Docket No. 2005N-0419]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Final rule; technical amendment.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its regulations to reflect a change in the name for AOAC INTERNATIONAL. This action is editorial in nature and is intended to improve the accuracy of the agency's regulations.

# DATES:

This rule is effective November 8, 2005.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joyce Strong, Office of Policy and Planning (HF-27), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-7010.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This document amends FDA's regulations to reflect the name change of AOAC INTERNATIONAL by removing the outdated name wherever it appears and by adding the new name in its place in 21 CFR parts 2, 10, 101, 102, 106, 114, 130, 131, 133, 135, 136, 137, 139, 145, 146, 150, 155, 156, 160, 161, 163, 164, 166, 168, 169, 172, 173, 176, 177, 178, 184, 189, 211, 226, 520, and 573.

Publication of this document constitutes final action on these changes under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). Notice and public procedure are unnecessary because FDA is merely correcting nonsubstantive errors.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

      ( print page 67651)    

# Chapter I [Nomenclature changes]

1. Parts 2, 10, 101, 102, 106, 114, 130, 131, 133, 135, 136, 137, 139, 145, 146, 150, 155, 156, 160, 161, 163, 164, 166, 168, 169, 172, 173, 176, 177, 178, 184, 189, 211, 226, 520, and 573 are amended by removing the phrase “Association of Official Analytical Chemists International” and adding in its place “AOAC INTERNATIONAL” wherever it appears. 

Dated: November 1, 2005.

Jeffrey Shuren,

Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-22167 Filed 11-7-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
#### STATE v. JENNINGS

No. 13 PC.

Case below: 5 N.C. App. 132.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 29 August 1969.
Exhibit (99.1)

   Written Statement of the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
                     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

      Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the
undersigned Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Alliant Energy
Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September
30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.




/s/  Erroll B. Davis, Jr.
-------------------------
Erroll B. Davis, Jr.
November 14, 2002
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1367 

To designate Union Station in Washington, DC, as ‘‘Harry S. Truman 

Union Station’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 8, 2019 

Mr. BLUNT (for himself and Mr. COONS) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

A BILL 

To designate Union Station in Washington, DC, as ‘‘Harry 

S. Truman Union Station’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HARRY S. TRUMAN UNION STATION. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—Union Station, located at 40 

5 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Washington, DC, shall be 

6 known and designated as ‘‘Harry S. Truman Union Sta7 tion’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1367 IS

1 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Harry S. Truman 

2 Union Station’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DONALD SPENCER, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-192

)

LEIGH FEITELSON, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed April 13, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Tracy Sheehan, 

Judge.

Joseph C. Hood, Tampa, for Appellant.

Lawrence J. Hodz of Cortes Hodz Family 

Law & Mediation, P.A., Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

SILBERMAN, KELLY, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Michele Nakazawa, Chief Financial Officer of Telos Corporation, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Telos Corporation; 

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

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

4. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f)and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand 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 inwhich this report is being prepared; 

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial 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 acceptedaccounting principles; 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis 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 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

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 committeeof registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43524

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

GARY WAYNE CARTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 523

Filed: May 5, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Timothy Hansen, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and consecutive unified sentences of five years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of four years for possession of a controlled 

substance with intent to deliver; five years indeterminate for felony intimidating a 

witness; and five years indeterminate for unlawful possession of a firearm, 

affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Gary Wayne Carter pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with the intent to 

deliver, Idaho Code § 37-2732(a); intimidating, impeding, influencing, or preventing the 

attendance of a witness, I.C. § 18-2604; and unlawful possession of a firearm, I.C. § 18-3316. 

The district court sentenced Carter to unified sentences of five years with four years determinate 

for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and consecutive five year 
2

indeterminate sentences for felony intimidating a witness and unlawful possession of a firearm. 

Carter appeals asserting the district court abused its discretion by imposing excessive sentences.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Carter’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6595 PAUL C. GORDON, a/k/a Troy Hilton, a/k/a Paul Jappal, a/k/a Star, a/k/a "G", Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-85) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 22, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul C. Gordon, Appellant Pro Se. David T. Maguire, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion for the production of trial transcript at government expense. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Gordon v. United States , No. CR-93-85 (E.D. Va. Apr. 4, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
|     |                                                                                                                                                                             |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1) | Exhibit A to the Agreement (Ameriprise Certificate Company Annual Fee Schedule) is hereby replaced with the attached Exhibit A, effective as of the date of this Amendment. |

----

|                                                                                                                                     |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                     |  |
| AMERIPRISE TRUST COMPANYBy: /s/ Amy K. JohnsonName:  Amy K. JohnsonTitle:   President                                               |   |
|                                                                                                                                |   |
| AMERIPRISE CERTIFICATE COMPANYBy: /s/ Scott R. PlummerName:  Scott R. PlummerTitle:   Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary |   |

----

----
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

STATEMENT

Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. 1350, the undersigned
officer of Mercury Air Group, Inc. (the Company)
hereby certifies that to the knowledge of the undersigned:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) The Companys Quarterly Report on
    Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2004
    fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or 15(d),
    as applicable, 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.                                                               



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ KENT ROSENTHAL     
| |                        
| | Kent Rosenthal         
| | Chief Financial Officer

February 14, 2004
#### Clayton RUNCK, Jr., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.

Civ. No. A3-91-69.

United States District Court, D. North Dakota, Southwestern Division.

May 8, 1991.

*1352Clayton Runck, Jr., pro se.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

VAN SICKLE, District Judge.

Clayton Runck, Jr. has filed his third petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He alleges that the plea agreement was breached and that the sentence of restitution is illegal. These claims were made in his first petition and rejected by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. See *United States v. Runck,*817 F.2d 470 (8th Cir.1987). He also requests a change in the judgment, which request was made in the second petition, and rejected by this court and summarily affirmed by the Eighth Circuit. To raise the same claims repeatedly constitutes an abuse of the writ. *Johnson v. Petrovsky,*626 F.2d 72 (8th Cir.1980). This being the third petition by this individual, the petition constitutes an abuse of the writ, even if the latest petition raises new claims, unless the petitioner shows an excusable failure to raise the claim earlier. *McCleskey v. Zant,*— U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991). To show an excusable failure the petitioner must show cause for failing to raise the issue and prejudice arising out of such failure, id. Petitioner here has not done so. Thus, insofar as the allegations may not be identical to those raised before, they also constitute an abuse of the writ.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PETITION IS DENIED.
#### JEFFREYS v. SNIPES

No. 57 PC.

Case below: 45 N.C. App. 76.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 May 1980.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 27, 2010 

p0419 

Order 

 

April 27, 2010 

140342 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140342 

 COA: 284887 

Wayne CC: 07-020818-FC 

DEANGELO BENNETT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 17, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.