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



                                                                EXHIBIT 99.1

                          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 Forever Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 (the "Report"),
I, Brent D. Cassity, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
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.


                           /s/ Brent D. Cassity
                           ----------------------------------------------------
                           Chief Executive Officer of Forever Enterprises, Inc.
                           August 13, 2003


         This certificate accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:

(1)  The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March
31, 2003 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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                    |  |                         | 
|------------------- |  | ----------------------- | 
|Date:  May 15, 2003 |  | /s/ Greg H. Guettler   
|                    |  |                        
|                    |  | President              
|                    |  |                        
|Date:  May 15, 2003 |  | /s/ James S. Murphy    
|                    |  |                        
|                    |  | Chief Financial Officer

23
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3430 

To maintain the National Coal Council in the Department of Energy to 

provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on 

matters relating to coal and the coal industry, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 16, 2021 

Mr. HOEVEN (for himself, Mr. BARRASSO, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. 

DAINES, Mr. LANKFORD, and Ms. LUMMIS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To maintain the National Coal Council in the Department 

of Energy to provide advice and recommendations to 

the Secretary of Energy on matters relating to coal and 

the coal industry, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Coal Council Certainty 

5 Act of 2021’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3430 IS

1 SEC. 2. NATIONAL COAL COUNCIL. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Energy shall 

3 maintain the National Coal Council, in accordance with 

4 the charter for the National Coal Council (as filed with 

5 Congress on November 19, 2021). 

6 (b) APPLICABILITY OF THE FEDERAL ADVISORY

7 COMMITTEE ACT.— 

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), 

9 the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 

10 App.) shall apply to the National Coal Council. 

11 (2) TERMINATION.—Section 14 of the Federal 

12 Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not 

13 apply to the National Coal Council. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 13727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6204]



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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Sequatchie Valley Bancshares, Inc.; Notice of Application to 
Engage de novo in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The company listed in this notice has filed an application under 
Sec.  225.23(a)(1) of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.23(a)(1)) 
for the Board's approval under section 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding 
Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(c)(8)) and Sec.  225.21(a) of Regulation Y 
(12 CFR 225.21(a)) to commence or to engage de novo, either directly or 
through a subsidiary, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in Sec.  
225.25 of Regulation Y as closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, such activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    The application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing on the question whether consummation of the proposal can 
``reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as 
greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, 
that outweigh possible adverse effects, such as undue concentration of 
resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interests, or 
unsound banking practices.'' Any request for a hearing on this question 
must be accompanied by a statement of the reasons a written 
presentation would not suffice in lieu of a hearing, identifying 
specifically any questions of fact that are in dispute, summarizing the 
evidence that would be presented at a hearing, and indicating how the 
party commenting would be aggrieved by approval of the proposal.
    Comments regarding the application must be received at the Reserve 
Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than 
March 28, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Zane R. Kelley, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:
    1. Sequatchie Valley Bancshares, Inc., Chattanooga, Tennessee; to 
engage de novo through its subsidiary Tennessee Business and Industrial 
Development Corporation, Chattanooga, Tennessee, in community 
development activities, pursuant to Sec.  225.25(b)(6) of the Board's 
Regulation Y. The proposed activity will be conducted throughout the 
state of Tennessee.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 8, 1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-6204 Filed 3-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
#### Same v. Same.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Opinion by

Daniels, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                            $3,859,362
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        159,629
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   4,151,915
<PP&E>                                             2,295,493
<DEPRECIATION>                                        73,236
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     7,267,043
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                938,460
<BONDS>                                              635,084
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                1
<COMMON>                                          16,338,238
<OTHER-SE>                                                 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       7,267,043
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           0
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   4,319,895
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    26,991
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (4,346,886)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (0.34)


</TABLE>
SCPW-13-0000019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

VESTAL K. SIMEONA, Petitioner,

vs.

NEIL ABERCROMBIE,

in his official capacity as Governor, Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and McKenna, JJ., and

Circuit Judge Ahn, in place of Pollack, J., recused)

Upon consideration of petitioner Vestal K. Simeona’s

petition for a writ of mandamus, which was filed on January 10,

2013, and the documents attached thereto and submitted in support

thereof, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that he

has a clear and indisputable right to be released from custody. 

Moreover, petitioner may seek relief in the circuit court and by

way of appeal, as appropriate. Petitioner, therefore, is not

entitled to mandamus relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200,

204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an

extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner

demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-13-0000019

19-FEB-2013

08:43 AM
2

of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or

obtain the requested action). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 19, 2013.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Karen S.S. Ahn
#### IN THE MATTER OF M. A. TURNER, Lunatic, and MATHILDE S. TURNER, Guardian, Ex Parte.

(Filed 13 May, 1931.)

Insane Persons D lb — Remedy of creditors of lunatic to subject estate to payment of debts contracted before adjudication is by civil action.

Where judgment creditors of a lunatic seek to subject the funds of the estate in the hands of the guardian to the payment of their debts contracted before the adjudication of lunacy, their remedy is by civil action in the Superior Court and not by petition, and a petition brought by them for this purpose is properly dismissed.

Appeal by petitioners from *Gowper, Special Judge,*at March Term, 1931, of MecKleNbueg.

Affirmed.

This is a proceeding begun by tbe petition of certain judgment creditors of M. A. Turner, a lunatic, on behalf of themselves and all other judgment creditors of the lunatic.

They pray that the court make an order that Mathilde S. Turner, guardian of the lunatic, disburse certain funds in her hands as such guardian, as payments pro rata on the judgments recovered of the lunatic and his guardian, on debts contracted by the lunatic prior to his adjudication.

From judgment dismissing the proceeding, without prejudice, the petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.

*F. A. McGlenaghan and Thomas G. Guthrie for petitioners.*

*Shore & Townsend for Mrs. George H. Bead, respondent.*

CoNNOR, *J.*

There is no error in the judgment dismissing this proceeding. The relief sought by the petitioners on the facts alleged in. their petition can be had only in a civil action begun and prosecuted in the Superior Court.

The petitioners and all other creditors of M. A. Turner, lunatic, should be made parties in the action entitled, “Mrs. George H. Read *v.*M. A. Turner *et al.,”*this day remanded to the Superior Court of Meck-lenburg County for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion in *Read v. Turner, ante, 773.*

Affirmed.
#### L. W. CLAYTON v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY & PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION.

(Filed 20 November, 1957)

Appeal by defendant from *Hall,*February, 1957 Civil Term, Franklin Superior Court.

Proceeding under Tort Claims Act for damages alleged to have been caused by the negligence of an employee of the defendant.

*George B. Patton, Attorney General; R. Brookes Peters, Asst. Attorney General and Parks H. Icenhour, Staff Attorney, for the State.*

*Gaither M. Beam, for plaintiff, appellee.*

Per Curiam.

The facts in this case are fully stated in the case of *D. H. Tucker v. State Highway & Public Works Commission, ante,*171, decided this day, and the decision in that case controls here. It may or may not be necessary in the view of the Industrial Commission to reconsider this case with reference to any claim on the part of the defendant that the plaintiff was con-tributorily negligent. To the extent here indicated, the order of Judge Hall is

Modified and Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 47 (Friday, March 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 13169]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5926]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Finding of No Significant Impact for an Incidental Take Permit 
for the Construction and Operation of the Davenport Ranch Subdivision 
in Austin, Travis County, Texas

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has prepared an 
Environmental Assessment for issuance of a Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit 
for the incidental take of the Federally endangered black-capped vireo 
(Vireo atricapillus) during the construction and operation of a 
residential development in western Travis County, Texas.

Proposed Action

    The proposed action is the issuance of a permit under Section 
10(a)(1)(2) of the Endangered Species Act to authorize the incidental 
take of the black-capped vireo.
    The Applicant plans to construct single-family residences on 
approximately 210 acres in western Travis County, Texas. The proposed 
development will comply with all local, State, and Federal 
environmental regulations addressing environmental impacts associated 
with this type of development. Details of the mitigation are provided 
in the Davenport Ranch Subdivision Environmental Assessment/Habitat 
Conservation Plan. Guarantees for implementation are provided in the 
Agreement. These conservation plan actions ensure that the criteria 
established for issuance of an incidental take permit will be fully 
satisfied.

Alternatives Considered

1. No action,
2. Development of the 107.8 acres of the 210-acre tract (Preferred 
Alternative),
3. A reduced development plan,
4. Alternative location, and
5. Wait for issuance of a Regional 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit.

Determination

    Based upon information contained in the Environmental Assessment/
Habitat Conservation Plan, the Service has determined that this action 
is not a major Federal action which would significantly affect the 
quality of the human environment with the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) 
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Accordingly, the 
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed action 
is not warranted.
    It is my decision to issue the Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for the 
construction and operation of the Davenport Ranch Subdivision 
development in Travis County, Texas.
A. Robyn Thorson,
Acting Regional Director, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
[FR Doc. 95-5926 Filed 3-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-10485

A.W. Chesterton Company:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1743

Detroit Thermal Systems:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Exhibit 10.28  Summary
Description of Named Executive OfficerOral At-Will Employment Agreement  With the exception of Daniel M. Bradbury, our President and Chief
Executive Officer, with whom we have a written employment agreement, we
maintain oral at-will employment relationships with each of our other
currently-serving named executive officers: Mark G. Foletta, Orville G.
Kolterman, M.D., Marcea Bland Lloyd and Roger Marchetti. Each of these
executive officers receives our normal and customary employment benefits,
generally on the same terms as all of our employees. The benefits include the
right to (i) participate in our 401(k) Plan and our Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, (ii) receive 10% of eligible compensation in the form of
Amylin common stock under our Employee Stock Ownership Plan and (iii) receive
stock option grants under our Equity Incentive Plan and cash bonuses under our
cash bonus plan. The cash bonus plan is called the Executive Cash Bonus Plan
when it applies to those employees with the title of executive director or
above.  In 2008 each of our named
executive officers voluntarily waived any right to receive an annual cash bonus
payout. Each of these executive officers is also eligible, along with all of our
employees holding the title of vice-president and above, to participate in our
Deferred Compensation Plan and our Officer Change in Control Severance Benefit
Plan. The Change in Control Plan provides each participant with certain
benefits in the event such employee ceases employment with Amylin without cause
or under certain specified circumstances and within 90 days prior to, or within
13 months following specified change of control transactions.  In such
event, (i) the president and chief executive officer would receive salary
continuation for 36 months and three times his annual target bonus; (ii) executive
officers would receive salary continuation for 24 months and two times their
annual target bonus, and (iii) non-executive officers would receive 18
months salary continuation and an amount equal to their annual target
bonus.  Under the Change in Control Plan,
officers would also receive 18 months of COBRA payment reimbursement.  We
also have customary indemnification agreements with our officers, including
these executive officers. In addition, the Compensation and Human Resources
Committee of our Board of Directors reviews the salaries of our executive
officers from time to time.  Mr. Bradburys annual salary is
currently set at $675,000. Annual salaries for each of our other named executives
are currently set as follows:  Dr. Kolterman
- $440,000, Mr. Foletta - $419,000, Ms. Lloyd - $400,125 and Mr. Marchetti
- $360,400.