alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SCOT-24-0000454 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I 

________________________________________________________________ 

LEROY LEE BOLDEN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

vs. 

STATE OF HAWAIʻI, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

________________________________________________________________ 

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT 

(CASE NO. 1CCV-23-0000188) 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.) 

On July 1, 2024, a Notice of Appeal from PlaintiffAppellant Leroy Lee Bolden (Bolden) was filed in this court. It 

is the Intermediate Court of Appeals that has jurisdiction over 

an appeal from final judgments or orders in a civil case in 

circuit court. See Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 641-1(a) (2016). 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Notice of Appeal filed in 

this court on July 1, 2024, is dismissed. 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCOT-24-0000454

27-SEP-2024

10:42 AM

Dkt. 10 ODSD
2 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bolden’s request to proceed 

in forma pauperis is dismissed as moot. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, September 27, 2024. 

 /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

 /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

 /s/ Todd W. Eddins 

 /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza 

 /s/ Vladimir P. Devens
**Exhibit 10.6**

 

June 2, 2008

 

Mr. Kenneth J. Swansonc/o Pliant Corporation1475 Woodfield RoadSchaumburg, Illinois 60173

 

Dear Ken:

 

This letter revises andsupersedes as of January 1, 2008, the severance benefit provisions in theCompany’s letter to you of August 17, 2004, in light of the taxregulations under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.

 

You are eligible for oneyear of salary continuance (payable over the 12-month period beginning withyour separation from service) and outplacement support in the event youremployment is involuntarily terminated, except if you are terminated for cause(as determined exclusively by the Company’s Board of Directors).   In the event that upon your separation youare a “specified employee” of a “public company” (as those terms are defined inthose regulations) and the total salary continuance exceeds the maximuminvoluntary separation pay amount (currently $460,000) permitted by the Section 409Aregulations, the excess will be paid no earlier than the date that is sixmonths after your separation from service. The foregoing is not, however, intended to modify your status of an “atwill” employee of the Company.

 

If you agree that thiscorrectly restates the terms of your severance benefit, please sign one copy ofthis letter below and return the signed copy to me.

 
|   |   | Pliant Corporation                     |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                   |
|   | By:    |  /s/ Harold C. Bevis              |
|   |   | Harold C. Bevis                        |
|   |   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

Agreed:

 
|  /s/ Kenneth J. Swanson |   |
|------------------------------|--------|
| Kenneth J. Swanson           |   |

 

----
SUBROUTINE CAUPDF(X,PDF)
C
C     PURPOSE--THIS SUBROUTINE COMPUTES THE PROBABILITY DENSITY
C              FUNCTION VALUE FOR THE CAUCHY DISTRIBUTION
C              WITH MEDIAN = 0 AND 75% POINT = 1. 
C              THIS DISTRIBUTION IS DEFINED FOR ALL X AND HAS
C              THE PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION
C              F(X) = (1/PI)*(1/(1+X*X)).
C     INPUT  ARGUMENTS--X      = THE SINGLE PRECISION VALUE AT
C                                WHICH THE PROBABILITY DENSITY
C                                FUNCTION IS TO BE EVALUATED.
C     OUTPUT ARGUMENTS--PDF    = THE SINGLE PRECISION PROBABILITY
C                                DENSITY FUNCTION VALUE.
C     OUTPUT--THE SINGLE PRECISION PROBABILITY DENSITY
C             FUNCTION VALUE PDF.
C     PRINTING--NONE.
C     RESTRICTIONS--NONE.
C     OTHER DATAPAC   SUBROUTINES NEEDED--NONE.
C     FORTRAN LIBRARY SUBROUTINES NEEDED--NONE.
C     MODE OF INTERNAL OPERATIONS--SINGLE PRECISION.
C     LANGUAGE--ANSI FORTRAN. 
C     REFERENCES--JOHNSON AND KOTZ, CONTINUOUS UNIVARIATE
C                 DISTRIBUTIONS--1, 1970, PAGES 154-165.
C     WRITTEN BY--JAMES J. FILLIBEN
C                 STATISTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY (205.03)
C                 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
C                 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20234
C                 PHONE:  301-921-2315
C     ORIGINAL VERSION--JUNE      1972. 
C     UPDATED         --SEPTEMBER 1975. 
C     UPDATED         --NOVEMBER  1975. 
C
C---------------------------------------------------------------------
C
      DATA C/.31830988618379/ 
C
      IPR=6
C
C     CHECK THE INPUT ARGUMENTS FOR ERRORS.
C     NO INPUT ARGUMENT ERRORS POSSIBLE 
C     FOR THIS DISTRIBUTION.
C
C-----START POINT-----------------------------------------------------
C
      PDF=C*(1.0/(1.0+X*X))
C
      RETURN
      END
Exhibit
      32.2






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 Global Materials & Services, Inc., a
      Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended June
      30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof (the “Report”), I, Raoul L. Carroll, 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, 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 result of operations of the Company.




Global
              Materials & Services, Inc.
              (formerly
                known as American Fire Retardant Corp.)Date:
                January 24, 2006
            
            By:/s/Raoul
                J. Carroll
              Title
                Chief Executive
                Officer
CFTC Ex. 200

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 77-7 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:1062
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 77-7 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:1063
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 77-7 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:1064
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 77-7 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:1065
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Petro, Inc. (the Company), that to his knowledge:

(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on the date hereof (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.

This written
statement is being furnished to the SEC as an exhibit to the Report. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.



|                     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2006 |  | /s/ J.A. Cardwell, Sr.               
|                     |  | (J.A. Cardwell, Sr.)                 
|                     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                     | 
|Date: March 30, 2006 |  | /s/ James A. Cardwell, Jr.           
|                     |  | (James A. Cardwell, Jr.)             
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
STALEY,
                OKADA & PARTNERS
              CHARTERED
                ACCOUNTANTS
            Suite
                400 - 889 West Pender Street
              Vancouver,
                BC Canada V6C 3B2
              **Tel**604
                694-6070
              **Fax**604
                585-3800
              info@staleyokada.com
              www.staleyokada.com








































**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS**











We
      consent to the use of our report dated July 7, 2006 (except as to Note 12,
      which
      is as of July 18, 2006) with respect to the consolidated financial statements
      of
      Rotoblock Corporation included in this Annual Report to Shareholders on Form
      10K-SB for the year ended April 30, 2006.




















***“Staley,
      Okada & Partners”***














July
      28,
      2006


STALEY,
      OKADA & PARTNERS


Chartered
      Accountants



































Staley,
        Okada & Partners, with offices in Vancouver and Surrey, is a Member of MSI,
        a Network of Independent Professional Firms • A Member of the Institute of
        Chartered Accountants of British Columbia
 A
        Partnership of Incorporated Professionals; L.M. Okada, Ltd., K.A. Scott,
        Ltd.,
        J.M. Bhagirath, Ltd., L.W.D. Vickars, Ltd., G.S. Traher, Inc., D. Larocque,
        Ltd.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

MICHELLE LEA PULSINELLI, ) DOC #T90671, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-4385 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed February 6, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Laura E. Ward, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and John C. Fisher, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Chelsea S. Alper, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
EXHIBIT 32.49

 

 

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 on Form 10-Q of DollarThrifty Automotive Group, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary L. Paxton, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,as adopted pursuant to §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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

/s/ Gary L. Paxton

Gary L. Paxton

Chief Executive Officer

May 12, 2008

 

 

 

 

 

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 Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. and will be retained by Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Cannabis Resources:

• American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) Position Statement: Industrial 

Hemp and its Impact to Forensic Laboratories – January 2019

https://www.ascld.org/resource-library/ascld-policy-library/

• UNODC ST/NAR/40, 2009. Recommended methods for the identification and analysis of 

cannabis and cannabis products: Manual for use by National drug analysis laboratories. 

United Nations.

• Washington State Patrol Forensic Laboratory Services 

http://wsp.wa.gov/forensics/crimelab_docs.php

o Materials Analysis Manuals – Materials Analysis Technical Procedures Revision 4

• B. F. Thomas and M. A. ElSohly; The Analytical Chemistry of Cannabis – Quality 

Assessment, Assurance, and Regulation of Medicinal Marijuana and Cannabinoid 

Preparations; Emerging Issues in Analytical Chemistry, RTI International (2016).

• M. A. ElSohly; Marijuana and the Cannabinoids; Humana Press (2007).

• L. Ambach, et al; Simultaneous quantification of delta-9-THC, THC-acid, CBN and CBD in 

seized drugs using HPLC-DAD. Forensic Science International 243 (2014) 107-111.

• L. Ciolino, T. R. Ranieri, and A. M. Taylor; Commercial cannabis consumer products Part 1: 

GC-MS qualitative analysis of cannabis cannabinoids. Forensic Science International 289 

(2018) 429-437.

• L. Ciolino, T. R. Ranieri, and A. M. Taylor; Commercial cannabis consumer products Part 2: 

HPLC-DAD quantitative analysis of cannabis cannabinoids. Forensic Science 

International 289 (2018) 438-447.

• R. Stanaszek and D. Zuba; A comparison of developed and validated chromatographic

methods (HPLC, GC-MS) for determination of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC) and 

delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (Δ9-THCA-A) in hemp. Problems of Forensic 

Sciences 71 (2007) 313-322.

• M. Hadener, et al; Cannabinoid concentrations in confiscated cannabis samples and in 

whole blood and urine after smoking CBD-rich cannabis as a “tobacco 

substitute”. International Journal of Legal Medicine 133 (2019) 821-832.

• W. Gul, et al; Determination of 11 cannabinoids in Biomass and extracts of different varieties 

of cannabis using high-performance liquid chromatography. Journal of the AOAC 

International 98 (2015) 1523-1528.

• S. Zivovinovic, et al; Determination of cannabinoids in Cannabis sativa L. samples for 

recreational, medicinal, and forensic purposes by reverse-phase liquid chromatographyultraviolet detection. Journal of Analytical Science and Technology 9 (2018) 27-36.

• Wang, et al; Quantitative determination of Δ9-THC, CBG, CBD, their acid precursors and 

five other neutral cannabinoids by UHPL-UV-MS. Planta Medica 84 (2018) 260-266.

• D. J. Harvey; Mass spectrometry of the cannabinoids and their metabolites. Mass 

Spectrometry Reviews 6 (1987) 135-229.
Subject: EXT :FW: CSF 2.0 

Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 1:34:27 PM 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening 

attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 

FYI 

Sent: Friday, February 24, 2023 4:59 PM 

To: cyberframework <cyberframework@nist.gov> 

Subject: CSF 2.0 

Hello, 

I have been a cybersecurity practitioner for many years and have leveraged CSF extensively in 

communications with executives and also in structuring and assessing cyber programs in large 

telecoms and defense contractors and federal/defense clients. 

The simplicity of CSF and the lifecycle view is primarily one of the major reasons for its acceptance 

and widespread use. I would strongly recommend not to make it too complicated - there will be 

demands from various industries and people who want the latest buzz word reflected in the 

framework. Not possible and it will only make it harder to use and follow. For example, zero trust is 

an architecture or design principle and not an activity that you can add to the framework. Multiple 

(existing controls in CSF) are needed to achieve zero trust. 

Saw that you were planning to add Govern as another vertical. The current structure of Identifyprotect-detect-respond-recover is a lifecycle view of an asset or vulnerability. So Govern does not fit 

in that same lifecycle view as Govern cuts across all verticals. Best would be to add it as a horizontal 

pillar that sits at the bottom of these five vertical pillars. 

Adding measurements to show progress and maturity will be helpful as today most big consulting 

companies have come up with their own methods of measurement and if you switch consulting 

companies the measurements and maturity from one consulting company to another does not 

align. These are also very subjective and the assessment score depends on the person doing the 

assessment - not a very good state. The measurement and maturity can be similar to the 800-53A 

document instead of being part of the CSF directly. 

Supply chain security - saw that you were planning to add this separately. Understand this is in 

the news due to solar winds and other events. I think this can be easily covered in the existing CSF 

verticals - I have been able to do that with my current and past organizations. Any asset we have to 

secure always has a supply chain implication - so whether the asset is built internally or sourced from 

a supplier, the Identify------recover lifecycle applies. So do not see a need to add supply chain 

separately, but existing controls can be reworded or made more specific to include supply chain 
considerations. 

I would welcome the opportunity to be engaged in this revision - I have the time and cycle to 

contribute and review as necessary. 

Regards, 

Sunil 

CTO/CISO 

Xylem Ventures
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4825

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. ANSELMO LEONIDAS RIVAS-LOVO, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:08-cr-00064-HEH-1)

Submitted: April 21, 2009 Decided: June 11, 2009

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Paul G. Gill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney, Richard D. Cooke, S. David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Anselmo Leonidas Rivas-Lovo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). He was sentenced to fifty months of imprisonment. Rivas-Lovo appeals his sentence, arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm. A sentence is reviewed for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States , 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see also United States v. Abu Ali , 528 F.3d 210, 260 (4th Cir. 2008), cert. denied , 129 S. Ct. 1312 (2009). The appellate court must first determine whether the district court committed any “significant procedural error,” Gall , 128 S. Ct. at 597, and then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, applying a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the guidelines range. Abu Ali , 528 F.3d at 261;

see also Gall , 128 S. Ct. at 597; Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, ___, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence). Rivas-Lovo argues that the presumption of reasonableness should not apply to his sentence because the guideline under which he was sentenced is not based on empirical study conducted by the Sentencing Commission. We disagree and apply a presumption of reasonableness to Rivas-Lovo’s

23 within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago , __ F.3d __, __, 2009 WL 782894, at *9 (5th Cir. Mar. 26, 2009). Rivas-Lovo next argues that his sentence is unreasonable because it does not further the sentencing goals contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). We have reviewed the record and conclude that Rivas-Lovo has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. We thus find the sentence

reasonable. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. 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
10006.

#### Tolliver *v.*The State.

Decided December 3, 1918.

Indictment for burglary; from Bibb superior court—Judge Mathews. July 15, 1918.

*John R. Cooper,*for plaintiff in error.

*John P. Ross, solicitor-general,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

1. There is no material error in any of the excerpts from the charge of the court, excepted to, when considered in connection with the entire charge.

2. The verdict was authorized hy the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth, J., concurs. Stephens, J., not presiding.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Morgan Kukovec

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04170

Honorable John Z. Lee

TIKTOK, INC., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, August 3, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee: This case has been consolidated

with E.R. v. TikTok, 20C2810. Accordingly, this case is terminated. All future filings

shall be made in 20C2810. Civil case terminated.Mailed notice(ca, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-04170 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/03/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:35
Exhibit 32.1 

 

CERTIFICATION 

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, 

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

I, Thomas F. Helms, Jr., as Chief Executive Officer of North Atlantic Holding Company, Inc. (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

 

(1) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

 

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

 

Dated: April 1, 2005