alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Amended Quarterly Report of Uplift Nutrition, Inc. (the "Registrant") as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the " Report"), I, Gary C. Lewis, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (1) This 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.


|      |                  |  |  |                                                          
|----- | ---------------- |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|      |                  |  |  |                                                          
|Date: | January 26, 2011 |  |  | /s/Gary C. Lewis                                         
|      |                  |  |  | Gary C. Lewis President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO)




|      |                  |  |   |                                                                                 
|----- | ---------------- |  | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|      |                  |  |   |                                                                                 
|Date: | January 26, 2011 |  | : | /s/Gary C. Lewis                                                                
|      |                  |  |   | Gary C. Lewis Principal Financial Officer (CFO) and Principal Accounting Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1049 

VICTOR HAYES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ELAINE CHAO, Secretary, United States

Department of Labor,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-03-

3591-RWT)

Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 31, 2005

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Victor Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Kristine L. Sendek Smith, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Victor Hayes appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his employment discrimination complaint for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. See Hayes v. Chao, No. CA-03-3591-

RWT (D. Md. filed Sept. 20, 2004 & entered Sept. 21, 2004). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CROWN
NORTHCORP INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS
OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND THE YEAR ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,210,451
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  591,036
<ALLOWANCES>                                   135,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,790,476
<PP&E>                                       1,323,742
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,054,948
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,694,474
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          894,917
<BONDS>                                      1,680,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          500,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       112,609
<OTHER-SE>                                     890,911
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,694,474
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,455,216
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,191,249
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                68,070
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             213,985
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,075,333)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,075,333)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,075,333)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.27)


</TABLE>
#### Ricky HANDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 47345.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 21, 1993.

Laura G. Martin, Asst. Appellant Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Moms, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from dismissal for untimely filing of Rule 24.035 posteonvietion motion.

The judgment of dismissal is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         864,381
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  434,554
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,302,020
<PP&E>                                       5,576,161
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,281
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,421,311
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,713,577
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        76,300
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,368,566)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,421,311
<SALES>                                      9,146,365
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,194,281
<CGS>                                        3,799,340
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,799,340
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,787,761
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,416,898
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (881,269)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   144,425
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (465,244)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (413,025)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,022,694)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)


</TABLE>
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39100

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

THOMAS MAURICE MASSEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 361

Filed: February 10, 2012

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. Thomas F. Neville, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fourteen years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of five years, for possession of a controlled substance with 

intent to deliver, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Thomas Maurice Massey pled guilty to an amended charge of possession of a controlled 

substance with intent to deliver. I.C. § 37-2732(a). In exchange for his guilty plea, the state 

agreed not to pursue an allegation that Massey was a persistent violator. The district court 

sentenced Massey to a unified term of fourteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of 

five years. Massey appeals.

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-
2

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, Massey’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Exhibit



       Exhibit 10(e)8



ALLETE Executive Annual Incentive Plan
Form of Award
Effective 2020
[Eligible Executive Employees]


Target Award Opportunity




	
		
	Base Salary
	$

	 
	 

	Times
	 

	 
	 

	Award Opportunity (percent of base salary)
	%

	 
	 

	Equals
	 

	 
	 

	Target Award 
	$






Performance Levels and Award Amounts




	
			
	Goal Performance Level
	Payout as Percent of 
Target Award
	Award Amount 

	Superior
	200% 
	$

	Target
	100% 
	$

	Threshold
	44%
	$

	Below Threshold
	0% 
	$








Goals


	
									
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	Goal

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	Weighting

	 
	Financial Goals
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	Net Income 
	50%

	 
	 
	Cash from Operating Activities
	 
	20%

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	Strategic & Operational & Values Goals
	 
	 
	 
	30%

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	100%






Compensation Subject to Compensation Recovery Policy


Annual Incentive Plan Compensation is subject to recoupment as defined in the Compensation Recovery policy.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4181

To provide for increased mandatory minimum sentences for criminals

possessing firearms, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 25, 1996

Mrs. MYRICK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide for increased mandatory minimum sentences for

criminals possessing firearms, 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. INCREASED MANDATORY MINIMUM SEN4 TENCES FOR CRIMINALS POSSESSING FIRE5 ARMS.

6 Section 924(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is

7 amended to read as follows:

8 ‘‘(c)(1)(A) Except to the extent a greater minimum

9 sentence is otherwise provided by any other provision of

10 this subsection or any other law, a person who, during
2

•HR 4181 IH

1 and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking

2 crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking

3 crime which provides for an enhanced punishment if com4 mitted by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or de5 vice) for which a person may be prosecuted in a court of

6 the United States, possesses a firearm shall, in addition

7 to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or

8 drug trafficking crime—

9 ‘‘(i) be punished by imprisonment for not less

10 than 10 years;

11 ‘‘(ii) if the firearm is discharged, be punished

12 by imprisonment for not less than 20 years; and

13 ‘‘(iii) if the death of a person results, be pun14 ished by the death penalty or by imprisonment for

15 not less than life.

16 ‘‘(B) If the firearm possessed by a person convicted

17 under this subsection is a machinegun or a destructive de18 vice, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muf19 fler, such person shall be sentenced to imprisonment for

20 not less than 30 years.

21 ‘‘(C) In the case of a second or subsequent conviction

22 under this subsection, such person shall be sentenced to

23 imprisonment for not less than 25 years, and if the fire24 arm is a machinegun or a destructive device, or is
3

•HR 4181 IH

1 equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, to life

2 imprisonment without release.

3 ‘‘(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the

4 court shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence

5 of any person convicted of a violation of this subsection,

6 nor shall the term of imprisonment imposed under this

7 subsection run concurrently with any other term of impris8 onment including that imposed for the crime of violence

9 or drug trafficking crime in which the firearm was pos10 sessed.’’.

Æ
Exhibit 31.1
 RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION
OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
      (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; and(d)
    
    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
  (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses
in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information;
and(b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date:  August 14, 2009
    /s/ Albert F. BuzzettiAlbert F. BuzzettiChairman and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of China Green Creative, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Deng Lin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Company’s Report 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:  November 20, 2009

/S/ Deng Lin

Deng Lin,

Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4178 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4178

To establish peer review for the review of standards promulgated under 
            the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 25, 1996

 Mr. McInnis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
          Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To establish peer review for the review of standards promulgated under 
            the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Sound Scientific Practices Act''.

SEC. 2. PEER REVIEW.

    (a) In General.--Whenever the Secretary of Labor determines that a 
standard should be promulgated under section 6 of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970 in order to serve the objectives of such 
Act, the Secretary shall appoint a panel of individuals to review--
            (1) the scientific and economic data which forms the basis 
        for such standard, and
            (2) the relevance of the data to industries and workers 
        which would be affected by such standard.
    (b) Panel.--
            (1) In general.--A panel appointed under subsection (a) for 
        a standard shall be broadly representative and balanced and 
        shall include persons with expertise in scientific and economic 
        analysis and persons with expertise relevant to any industry 
        which would be subject to such standard.
            (2) Conflicts of interest.--Persons with substantial and 
        relevant expertise shall not be excluded from a panel merely 
        because they represent entities which may have potential 
        interest in a standard under consideration if that interest is 
        fully disclosed to the Secretary. In the case of a panel 
        considering a standard affecting a single entity, no peer 
        reviewer representing such entity may be included on such 
        panel.
    (c) Reports.--Reports of a panel appointed under subsection (a) for 
a standard, including any individual and minority reports, shall be 
published together with any proposed or final rule promulgating such 
standard. The Secretary shall provide a written response to all 
significant comments of the panel and shall include such responses with 
the proposed or final rule to which the reports of the panel members 
are attached.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 155 (Monday, August 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46582-46583]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18516]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the New Jersey Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, that a planning meeting of the New Jersey 
Advisory Committee of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will convene 
at 1 p.m. and adjourn at 5 p.m. on Friday, September 5, 2008, at the 
Legislative Annex of the State House, 125 West State Street, Room 1, 
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0099.
    The purpose of this meeting is to receive and discuss subcommittee 
presentations that will be made in support of a proposed civil rights 
project.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the

[[Page 46583]]

comments must be received in the Eastern Regional Office by October 3, 
2008. The address is 624 Ninth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20425. 
Persons wishing to e-mail their comments, or who desire additional 
information should contact Alfreda Greene, Secretary, 202-376-7533, TTY 
202-376-8116 or by e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2445435641414a416451574747560a434b52"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c4a5a3b6a1a1aaa184b1b7a7a7b6eaa3abb2">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Hearing impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the service of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the 
meeting.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before 
and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory 
committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above 
e-mail or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, August 6, 2008.
Christopher Byrnes,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
 [FR Doc. E8-18516 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Mabel Franklin v. State.

No. 25802.

April 9, 1952.

Hon. U. S. Branscum, Judge Presiding.

*H. F. Grindstajf,*Rotan, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for unlawfully selling whisky in a dry area, with punishment assessed at a fine of $300 and one hundred days in jail.

The information alleges that the sale was made to John Hynd in Fisher County, Texas, a dry area, and contains the additional and descriptive averment that the sale was "on the premises in the City of Rotan, Texas.”

Such descriptive averment was unnecessary to charge the offense but, having so alleged, the state assumed the burden of supporting that allegation by the proof.

We fail to find any testimony showing that the sale was made in the "City of Rotan, Texas.”

The evidence, in not establishing the allegations of the information, is insufficient to sustain the conviction.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.