alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION



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



(1)       The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 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 report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:

        August 8, 2008

        

        /s/ Bernard P. AldrichBernard P. AldrichPresident and Chief Executive Officer






Date:

        August 8, 2008

        

        /s/ Robert M. WolfRobert M. WolfChief Financial Officer








---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a Rick, Thomas J. Albemaz, Peter Smigowski and William John Martins, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 77-5339.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 7, 1980.

Raymond E. LaPorte, Tampa, Fla., for Rodriguez.

Martin G. Weinberg, Boston, Mass., for Albernaz.

James W. Lawson, Joseph S. Oteri, Boston, Mass., for Smigowski.

Joel R. Magazine, Coconut Grove, Fla., for Martins.

*1185Diane R. Tolbert, Key West, Fla., Jeanne Baker, Cambridge, Mass., for defendants-appellants.

Jack V. Eskenazi, U. S. Atty., Michael P. Sullivan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., Mervyn Hamburg, Atty., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Criminal Division, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before COLEMAN, Chief Judge, BROWN, AINSWORTH, GODBOLD, CHARLES CLARK, RONEY, GEE, TJO-FLAT, HILL, FAY, RUBIN and VANCE, Circuit Judges.**

**

 Judges Kravitch, Frank M. Johnson, Jr., Garza, Henderson, Reavley, Politz, Hatchett, Anderson, Randall, Tate, Sam D. Johnson, and Thomas A. Clark have become members of the Court since January 23, 1979, when this case was taken under submission. They do not wish to participate in the decision.

BY THE COURT:

By Court directive from the Clerk on November 28,1978, all parties were advised of the issues to be considered by the Court en banc and were also instructed that, “In order to preserve your right as to other issues in the case, the time for filing a petition for panel rehearing thereof is being extended for a period of fourteen (14) days from this date.” (See also Fifth Circuit Local Rule 17). To enable the panel to determine the issues raised in the petitions for rehearing the case is remanded to the panel for determination of all such issues other than those determined by the Court en banc.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26980]



[[Page 65567]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[TD 9340]
RIN 1545-BB64


Revised Regulations Concerning Section 403(b) Tax-Sheltered 
Annuity Contracts; Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Correction to final regulations.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to final regulations (TD 
9340) thatwere published in the Federal Register on Thursday, July 26, 
2007 (72 FR41128) providing updated guidance on section 403(b) 
contracts of public schools and tax-exemptorganizations described in 
section 501(c)(3). These regulations will affect sponsors of 
section403(b) contracts, administrators, participants, and 
beneficiaries.

DATES: The correction is effective October 26, 2010, and is applicable 
on July 26, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the regulations, John 
Tolleris at(202) 622-6060; concerning the regulations as applied to 
church-related entities, Sherri Edelmanor Jason Levine at (202) 283-
9634 (not toll-free numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The final regulations that are the subject of this correction are 
under section 403(b)of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

    As published, final regulations (TD 9340) contain an error that may 
prove to bemisleading and is in need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication of the final regulations (TD 9340), 
which was thesubject of FR Doc. 07-3649, is corrected as follows:
    On page 41138, column 2, in the preamble, under footnote number 11, 
line 26,the language ``Rev. Rul. 66-254 (1966-2 CB. 125)'' is removed.

LaNita Van Dyke,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch,Legal Processing 
Division,Associate Chief Counsel(Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2010-26980 Filed 10-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Document

Exhibit 10.2

Amendment to Employment Agreement


L. Lauder


 
THIS AMENDMENT (“Amendment”), dated as of May 1,  2020, to the Employment Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2000 as amended as of July 1, 2002, November 16, 2005, December 31, 2008, July 1, 2009, October 8, 2010 and May 13, 2005 (the “Agreement”), between The Estée Lauder Companies Inc., a Delaware corporation (“the “Company”), and Leonard Lauder (the “Executive”).
 
W I T N E S S E T H:
 
WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company are parties to the Agreement; and
 
WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive wish to amend the Agreement to reflect the impact of COVID-19 on the Company;
 
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and obligations hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows:
 
1.               Amendment.
 
Section 1 of the Agreement shall be amended to reflect that for the period from May 1, 2020 through October 31, 2020, the Executive’s Base Salary shall be reduced to $10,000.00 for the six-month period, payable at the rate of $1,666.67 per month.


2.               Miscellaneous.
 
A.Except as provided above, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same.
B.    Capitalized terms used in this Amendment shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement, except to the extent the term is modified herein.
C.    This Amendment shall be subject to, and governed by, the laws of the State of New York applicable to contracts made and to be performed therein.
 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.


												
	 	THE ESTÉE LAUDER COMPANIES INC.		
	 	 		 
	 	 		 
	 	By:		/s/Michael O’Hare
	 	Name:		Michael O’Hare
	 	Title:		Executive Vice President –
	 	 		Global Human Resources





	 	

		


	 	 By:		/s/Leonard A. Lauder
	

	

		Leonard Lauder
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-96235) pertaining to The 1996 Stock Option Plan and The 1999 Stock
Option and Grant Plan of MCK Communications, Inc., the registration statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-49946) pertaining to The 2000 Director Stock Option Plan of
MCK Communications, Inc., and the registration statement (Form S-8 No.
333-51218) pertaining to The 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of MCK
Communications, Inc. of our report dated June 7, 2002 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of MCK Communications, Inc. included in the
annual report (Form 10-K) for the year ended April 30, 2002.


                                                /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
August 11, 2002
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

SAMUEL LYN REAVES,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 21

- 00186

- C R

Appeal from the

18th Judicial District Court

of Johnson County, Texas

(TC# DC

- F201700692)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022.

SANDEE B. MARION, Chief Justice (Ret.)

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Alley, J., and Marion, C.J. (Ret.)

Marion, C.J. (Ret.) (Sitting by Assignment)
# Failure Is Not An Option

Gene Kranz (foreground, back to camera), an Apollo 13 Flight Director, watches Apollo 13 astronaut and lunar module pilot Fred Haise onscreen in the Mission Operations Control Room, during the mission's fourth television transmission on the evening of April 13, 1970.

Read More

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/failure-not-an-option/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareSize1041x761pxThe National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Mar 17, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7684

MATTHEW L. SINGLETARY,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

ANTHONY J. PADULA, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge. 

(4:11-cv-00512-RMG)

Submitted: January 9, 2013 Decided: January 31, 2013

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew L. Singletary, Appellant Pro Se. Brendan McDonald, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John 

Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Matthew L. Singletary seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Singletary has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny Singletary’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 10.3


		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			List of Accredited Investors
		

		
			﻿
		

			
					
						﻿

					
						Investor

					
					
						 

					
					
						Subscription Amount

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
						Shares

				
	
					
						Andrew Tobias

					
					
						 

					$100,000 
					
					
						 

					285,715 
				
	
					
						Robert Frier

					
					
						 

					$100,000 
					
					
						 

					285,715 
				
	
					
						Joseph W. Kaempfer, Jr.

					
					
						 

					$100,000 
					
					
						 

					285,715 
				
	
					
						Lewis Titterton

					
					
						 

					$50,000 
					
					
						 

					142,858 
				
	
					
						RER Irrevocable Trust

					
					
						 

					$50,000 
					
					
						 

					142,858 
				
	
					
						Joan Zofnass

					
					
						 

					$50,000 
					
					
						 

					142,858 
				
	
					
						Edward Motter

					
					
						 

					$25,000 
					
					
						 

					71,429 
				
	
					
						Hajibashi, LLC

					
					
						 

					$25,000 
					
					
						 

					71,429 
				



		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-0 6 -00701 -CV In re SylvesterMajor s
ORIG IN A L PR OC E E D IN GFR OM T R A V IS C OU N T Y
M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N Sy lvester Ma

jors is servingthe pr i s o n sentenc e imposed followinghis conviction for a g g ravated robbe ry . In September 2005, he filed his pro se “ Def en d an t M o tion Requesting For ensic DN A Testing ” in the 299th J udicial District Court. SeeTe x. Cod e Cr im. Pr oc . A nn . a rt . 64 .0 1 (West S up p. 20 06 ). On Oc tob e r 1 8, 20 06 , a ft e r t he State fi le d it s r e sp on se in o pp os iti on to th e m o t i on, the district court sig ned and f iled a wr itten order pur

porting to overrule “Applica nt’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel to file motion for DNA te sting.”

Majors per fec ted an a

ppeal to this Court urg ing tha t his mot ion for DNA testing w as err oneously

denied. We dismi ssed the appe al with a memora ndum opinion ex plaining that “[t] he
rec ord bef

ore us doe s not refle ct any ruling by the district court on [Majors’s] moti on reque sting fo re ns ic DNA tes ti ng. Witho ut a ru lin gin t

he re c or d, the re is n oth ingbe fo re us fo r r e vie w w ith respe ct to appellant’ s motion requesting fore nsic DNA te sting.” In reMa jor s , N o. 03 -0 6- 00 09 1- CR (Tex. App.—Austin Aug . 9, 2006, no pet.) (not de signated for publication).2 In November

2006, Majors filed this pe tition for a writ of mandamus. I n his petition, he complains that the district c ourt has not r uled on his motion for D NA testingand asks the Court to order the district court to ac t on the motion. Consideration of a motion properly filed and be fore the court is mini sterial. State ex re l Curry v. Gray , 726 S.W .2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987).

On J anuar y 30, 2007, the district c ourt acte d on Major’s motion for DNA testing. O n that date, the c ourt signe d a nunc pr o tunc orde r purpor ting to cor rec t the cler ical err or in the cour t’s October 18, 2006, and over

ruling Majors’s m o t i o n for DN A testing . Majors may timely appea l from the J anuar

y 30 order
. See Homan v. Hughes , 708 S.W .2d 449, 452 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Ex pa rteCur

ry , 712 S.W .2d 878, 880 Tex. App.—Austin 1986, no pet.). B e c a us e the re lie f s ou g ht h a s b e e n o the rw ise grant e d, the pe tit ion fo r wri t of mandamus is dis missed.

_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Filed: Mar ch 14, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 65708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27083]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

October 21, 2010.
    The Department of the Treasury will submit the following public 
information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or 
after the date of publication of this notice. A copy of the submission 
may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer 
listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be 
addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury PRA Clearance 
Officer, Department of the Treasury, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Suite 11010, Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before November 26, 
2010 to be assured of consideration.

Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD)

    OMB Number: 1535-0141.
    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Investigative Forms.
    Form: PD F 5518, 5519, 5520, and 5521.
    Abstract: Information requested is in support of background 
investigations conducted by the Bureau of the Public Debt.
    Respondents: Individuals and Households.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 361 hours.
    Bureau Clearance Officer: Bruce Sharp, Bureau of the Public Debt, 
200 Third Street, Parkersburg, West Virginia 26106; (304) 480-8112.
    OMB Reviewer: Shagufta Ahmed, Office of Management and Budget, New 
Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503; (202) 395-
7873.

Dawn D. Wolfgang,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-27083 Filed 10-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-39-P
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1763

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

14 Chestnut Street, in Liberty, New York, as the ‘‘Ben R. Gerow 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 21, 2003

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 14 Chestnut Street, in Liberty, New York, 

as the ‘‘Ben R. Gerow Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. BEN R. GEROW POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 14 Chestnut Street, in Liberty, 

6 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Ben 

7 R. Gerow Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
2

•S 1763 IS 

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

2 be deemed to be a reference to the Ben R. Gerow Post 

3 Office Building.

Æ
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 16, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

TIMOTHY DOYLE YOUNG,

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

BUREAU OF PRISONS; ADM. OFFICE

OF THE U.S. COURTS; JUDICIAL

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE; ERIC

HOLDER, Atty. General;

CHRISTOPHER B. SYNSVOLL;

DEBORAH A. LOCKE, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-1019

 (D.C. No. 1:09-CV-01873-ZLW

ORDER

On February 18, 2010, the court filed an order directing appellant to pay the full

filing fee within 21 days of the date of the order or the appeal would be dismissed. To

date, appellant has not paid the filing fee. Accordingly, this matter is dismissed for failure

to prosecute. See 10th Cir. R. 42.1. A copy of this order shall stand as the mandate of

this court.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1019 Document: 01018385120 Date Filed: 03/16/2010 Page: 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                      Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                        Dec-31-1999
<CASH>                                                       0
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          815,792
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                              8,158
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       823,950
<PP&E>                                                  70,344
<DEPRECIATION>                                         (21,458)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         880,104
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                1,161,195
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                 1,005
<OTHER-SE>                                            (282,096)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           880,104
<SALES>                                              4,218,613
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     4,218,613
<CGS>                                                4,009,074
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     4,207,638
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (3,998,099)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (3,998,009)
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (3,998,099)
<EPS-BASIC>                                              (0.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            (0.42)


</TABLE>