alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
35082 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Notices

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

Determination Under Section 305 of

the Trade Agreements Act of 1979

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Determination Under Section

305 of the Trade Agreements Act of

1979.

Pursuant to section 305(g)(1) of the

Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as

amended (19 U.S.C. 2515(g)(1)(A)), and

the authority vested in me by the

President pursuant to Presidential

Determination 96–36, I hereby identify

Germany as a country that maintains in

government procurement, a significant

and persistent pattern or practice of

discrimination against United States

products or services which results in

identifiable harm to United States

businesses. Pursuant to section 305(g)(2)

of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as

amended, on behalf of the President, I

hereby determine that immediate

imposition of the sanctions specified in

section 305(g)(1)(B) of the Act would

harm the public interest of the United

States, and accordingly postpone

imposition of those sanctions so that

they will take effect September 30, 1996.

Reasons for a Determination

On April 30, 1996, in the

Administration’s annual report to the

Congress under Title VII of the Omnibus

Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988

(section 305 of the Trade Agreements

Act of 1979, as amended), the

Administration identified Germany for

discrimination in the procurement of

heavy electrical equipment. Specifically

cited was the failure of Germany to

implement the provisions of the 1993

U.S.-European Union (EU)

Memorandum of Understanding on

Government Procurement (MOU),

which requires Germany, among other

things, to give U.S. suppliers access to

an effective remedies system.

If the 60-day period of consultations

specified in the statute is not successful

in resolving U.S. concerns, the President

is required to make this determination.

Although the United States held

consultations with the Commission of

the European Communities,

representing Germany, to address the

practices cited in the Title VII report,

U.S. concerns have not yet been

addressed by Germany in a satisfactory

manner. Therefore, pursuant to the

requirements of the statute, I have

determined to identify Germany.

However, in light of progress in these

consultations, I am postponing

implementation of the sanctions until

September 30, 1996, to provide an

opportunity to resolve remaining U.S.

concerns by then.

This determination shall be published

in the Federal Register.

Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky,

Acting United States Trade Representative.

[FR Doc. 96–17240 Filed 7–2–96; 11:33 am]

BILLING CODE 3110–01–M
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Max Weissengruber, President, and D. Brian
Robertson, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Vice-President of Sales, of
Freshwater Technologies, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

|(1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Freshwater
      Technologies, Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2009 (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 Freshwater Technologies, Inc.                                                                 

Dated: May 14, 2009

/s/ Max Weissengruber Max
Weissengruber President and Director (Principal Executive Officer)

/s/ D. Brian Robertson D. Brian
RobertsonTreasurer, Chief Financial Officer, Vice-President of Sales and
Director (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Freshwater
Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Freshwater Technologies, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---
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
Annual Report on Form 10-K of ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned,
Joseph C. Lawler, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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.

Date: October 14, 2011



By:

/s/    JOSEPH C.
LAWLERJoseph C. LawlerChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of RSC Holdings Inc.;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 the
statements 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 report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this 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, 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)
    
    [Not Applicable]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 most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal 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
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 committee of 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; andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ Erik OlssonErik OlssonPresident and
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
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

###### National Institutes of Health

Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Strategic Planning Implementation Workgroup organized by the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC).

The workgroup meeting will be closed to the public with attendance limited to invited participants. The purpose of the workgroup meeting is to discuss future granting opportunities and budgetary requirements for the IACC Strategic Plan for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Research. The workgroup recommendations will be forwarded to the IACC for consideration and discussion at its next meeting on November 21, 2008.

*Name of Committee:*                         Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC).                    

*Type of meeting:*                         Strategic Planning Implementation Workgroup.                    

*Date:*                         August 8, 2008.                    

*Time:*                         11 a.m. to 3 p.m. EDT.                    

*Agenda:*                         Review of budgetary requirements and funding opportunities for the IACC Strategic Plan for ASD Research.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 8233, Bethesda, MD.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Azik Schwechter, PhD., Office of Autism Research Coordination, Office of the Director, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, 6001 Executive Boulevard, NSC, Room 8203a, Bethesda, MD 20892–9669, 301–443–7163,                         *schwechtera@mail.nih.gov*.                    

                        Information about the IACC is available on the Web site:                         *http://www.nimh.nih.gov/​research-funding/​scientific-meetings/​recurring-meetings/​iacc/​index.shtml.*

Dated: July 24, 2008.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8–17513 Filed 7–30–08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140–01–P
srer_ex101.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1


 


SEARCHCORE, INC.


SECOND AMENDMENT TO


NON-RECOURSE SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE







This Second Amendment to Non-Recourse Secured Promissory Note (this “Amendment”) is entered into on March 31, 2014 and is effective as of December 31, 2013 by and between SearchCore, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) and Domain Holdings, Inc., an Alberta corporation (the “Holder”). Each of the Company and the Holder may be referred to as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”







RECITALS







WHEREAS, the Parties executed that certain Non-Recourse Secured Promissory Note dated August 7, 2012 in the original principal sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) (the “Note”), of which $100,000 has been paid;







WHEREAS, the Parties entered into a First Amendment to Non-Recourse Secured Promissory Note dated October 25, 2012 wherein Section 2 was amended and restated in its entirety;







WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Note as set forth herein to amend the date on which payments are due and the amount of such payments.







NOW, THEFORE, for good and adequate consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:







AGREEMENT








	
1.  

	
Section 2 of the Note shall be amended and restated as follows:













	
  

	
“a.

	
Payment Schedule. The Principal Amount of this Note shall be repaid by Payor as follows:













	
i.  

	
One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) shall be paid to Holder on January 10th, 2015;













	
ii.  

	
The remaining balance of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000) shall be paid in three (3) equal installments of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) on each of April 10, 2015, July 10, 2015, and October 10, 2015.”













	
2. 

	
Other than as set forth herein, the term and conditions of the Note shall remain in full force and effect.














  





1











  






 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Amendment as of the date first set forth above.


 


 



	
“Company”

	 	
“Holder”

	 
	  	 	  	 
	
SearchCore, Inc.,

	 	
Domain Holdings, Inc.

	 
	
a Nevada corporation

	 	  	 
	  	 	  	 
	
/s/ James Pakulis

	 	
/s/ David Jeffs

	 
	
By:  James Pakulis

	 	
By:  David Jeffs

	 
	
Its:  Chief Executive Officer

	 	
Its:  Chief Executive Officer

	 





 


 


 


 


 2
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MIAKKAR L. BROWN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-1822

[November 16, 2023]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Hon. Caroline C. 

Shepherd, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502004CF003240.

Miakkar L. Brown, Indiantown, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHN MOULTRIE, n/k/a

MUJAHID LATIF,

Petitioner, Case No. 09-11543

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

vs.

DEBRA SCUTT, 

Respondent.

__________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN

FORMA PAUPERIS 

Before the court is petitioner’s motion for permission to appeal in forma pauperis,

filed on November 4, 2010. 

On September 15, 2010, this court accepted and adopted the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation, denied petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, denied

the issuance of a certificate of appealability, and denied petitioner leave to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal. See Dkt. No. 15. On October 6, 2010, this court denied petitioner’s

motion for relief from judgment. See Dkt. No. 18. On October 15, 2010, petitioner filed a

notice of appeal. See Dkt. No. 19. 

On April 29, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an

order denying petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability and denied as moot

2:09-cv-11543-GCS-PJK Doc # 23 Filed 05/09/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1483
-2-

petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

Accordingly, 

Petitioner’s motion for permission to appeal in forma pauperis is denied as moot. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2011

S/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of

record on

May 9, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Josephine Chaffee

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-11543-GCS-PJK Doc # 23 Filed 05/09/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1484
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7991

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MATTHEW CAMPBELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(4:07-cr-01422-RBH-1)

Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker 

Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Matthew Campbell seeks to appeal the amended criminal 

judgment entered after the district court reduced his sentence 

pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). Campbell argues that the 

reduction the court awarded was inadequate in light of the 

nature of his substantial assistance. However, under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3742(a) (2006), this court does not have “jurisdiction to 

review the extent of the district court’s downward departure.” 

United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir. 1995); see

United States v. Davis, 679 F.3d 190, 193-94 (4th Cir. 2012) 

(explaining that, although the court may entertain “challenges 

to the lawfulness of the method used by the district court in 

making its sentencing decision,” this court lacks “jurisdiction 

to review any part of a discretionary sentencing decision”). 

Because the sole issue raised on appeal attacks the extent of 

the reduction the district court awarded, we dismiss this appeal 

for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in 

the decisional process.

DISMISSED
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50330

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GLEN GARNER SHIPLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(W-96-CA-119)

February 20, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Glen Shipley a ppeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion in which he contended that the factual basis for his guilty-plea conviction1 116 S.Ct. 501 (1995).

2 The AEDPA which requires a COA in section 2255 proceedings is inapplicable because

Shipley filed his petition before its effective date and the appellate filing fee has been paid.

3 United States v. Thompson , 122 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Carter

, 117 F.3d 262 (5th Cir. 1997).

2 under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) for use of a firearm was insufficient in light of Bailey

v. United States

. 1 His motions for a certificate of appealability and for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis are DENIED as unnecessary. 2

Shipley maintains that the district court erred in holding that he was

procedurall y barred from collaterally challenging his guilty-plea conviction and

that the factual basis submitted by the government at his guilty-plea hearing was

insufficient to establish that he used a firearm as defined by the Supreme Court in

Bailey

.

Since entry of the district court’s orde r of dismissal, we have held that a

section 2255 movant may raise a Bailey challenge to a guilty-plea conviction in a

collateral proceeding. 3 In light of these intervening decisions we must vacate the

trial court’s holding that it was limited in its review of Shipley’s Bailey challenge

to his guilty-plea conviction. The trial court is to address the merits of Shipley’s

claim that the factual basis for his guilty plea was insufficient to support the plea.

Accordingly, the district court’s order di smissing Shipley’s section 22553

motion is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further procee dings

consistent with the teachings of Bailey

, releva nt decisions of this court, and this

opinion.

VACATED and REMANDED.
#### Norman Gale HICKS, Respondent. v. Karen Adele BRAXTON, Appellant.

No. WD 49188.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 11, 1995.

Gary Lee Stamper, Columbia, for appellant.

C. Christy Barton, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and ULRICH and SMART, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Karen Adele Braxton appeals the trial court’s termination of its order that her former husband pay her $800 a month in maintenance. We affirm. Because we do not discern any precedential value in publishing an opinion, we issue this summary order. Rule 84.16(b).
#### David Brian WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 68297.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 13, 1996.

David Simpson, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Breck K. Burgess, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and CRANDALL and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
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 this Quarterly Report of
Western Graphite Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2015 (the “Report”),
as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jennifer Andersen, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: May 15, 2015



/s/ Jennifer Andersen

Jennifer Andersen

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)