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

      CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER and PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
        OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Report (as defined under the preceding Certification
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, Peter Lamoureux,
President of Everest Asset Management, Inc., the general partner of the Everest
Fund, L.P. (the "Fund"), 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 results of
            operations of the Fund.


                                      By:  /s/ Peter Lamoureux
                                           --------------=----------------------
                                      Name:  Peter Lamoureux
                                           -------------------------------------
                                      Title:  Director, President and Treasurer
                                            ------------------------------------
                                      August 13, 2004


                                                                             E-3
Order Granting Extension of Time 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0423

__________________________________________________________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CHARLES CLIFFORD HAMLIN,

 Defendant and Appellant.

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME

__________________________________________________________________

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing therefor;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted a thirty (30) 

day extension to file his Opening Brief, which shall be due on November 

13, 2020.

SIGNED AND DATED AS INDICATED ABOVE.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 9 2020

10/09/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0423
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 67495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26813]



[[Page 67495]]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73550; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2014-034]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; 
Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Proposed 
Changes To Remove From the Exchange Rules Fee Provisions Regarding Re-
Transmission of ``Third-Party Data''

November 6, 2014.
    On April 7, 2014, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or the 
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ to 
remove, from the Exchange rules, fee provisions with respect to third-
party data feeds that Nasdaq receives from multiple sources and then 
re-transmits to clients in connection with the Exchange's co-location 
services. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the 
Federal Register on April 28, 2014.\3\ On June 5, 2014, the Commission 
extended the time to act on the proposal until July 25, 2014.\4\ On 
July 22, 2014, the Commission instituted proceedings to determine 
whether to disapprove the proposed rule change in an order published in 
the Federal Register.\5\ The Commission received no comment letters on 
the proposed rule change. On October 23, 2014, the Commission extended 
the time to act on the proposal until December 24, 2014.\6\ On October 
24, 2014, the Exchange withdrew the proposal (SR-NASDAQ-2014-034).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71990 (April 22, 
2014), 79 FR 23389 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72328, 79 FR 33605 
(June 11, 2014).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72654, 79 FR 43808 
(July 28, 2014).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73416, 79 FR 64444 
(October 29, 2014).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-26813 Filed 11-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Exhibit (10.19) 



OSHKOSH TRUCK
CORPORATION 



Summary of Cash
Compensation For Non-Employee Directors 



        Cash
compensation for non-employee members of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of
Oshkosh Truck Corporation, effective January 1, 2006, consists of payment of the
following: (i) an annual retainer of $35,000 for each non-employee director; (ii) an
annual retainer of $10,000 to the non-employee Chairman of the Audit Committee of the
Board; (iii) an annual retainer of $5,000 to the non-employee Chairman of other Board
Committees; and (iv) a fee of $1,500 for each meeting of the Board or a Board Committee
that a non-employee director attends either in person or via telephone.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

LEOPOLDO GONZALEZ-HURTADO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-50111

D.C. No. 3:08-CR-02629-LAB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Leopoldo Gonzalez-Hurtado appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

JUN 14 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-50111

Gonzales-Hurtado contends that the district court erred by denying a minorrole adjustment under the Sentencing Guidelines because it: 1) failed to compare

him to other likely participants in the scheme; and 2) incorrectly determined that he

had not met his burden of showing that he was substantially less culpable than the

other participants in the scheme. The record reflects that the district court properly

considered Gonzales-Hurtado’s “culpability relative to the involvement of other

likely actors” in the criminal scheme. See United States v. Rojas-Millan, 234 F.3d

464, 473-474 (9th Cir. 2000). Additionally, under the facts of the case, the district

court did not clearly err by denying the adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell,

433 F.3d 1269, 1282-84 (9th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Lui, 941 F.2d

844, 849 (9th Cir. 1991) (stating that a defendant “may be a courier without being

either a minimal or a minor participant,” and that “possession of a substantial

amount of narcotics is grounds for refusing to grant a sentence reduction”).

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.333-54479 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 30, 2007, (which includes anexplanatory paragraph regarding the ability of MAXXAM Inc. and subsidiaries torealize their timber related assets and discharge their timber relatedliabilities in the normal course of business and to continue as a going concern)relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statementschedules of MAXXAM Inc., and management's report on the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report onForm 10-K of MAXXAM Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006.

 

 

Houston, Texas

March 30, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4470 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 415
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4470

                          [Report No. 108-676]

    To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to extend the 
   authorization of appropriations for the Lake Pontchartrain Basin 
           Restoration Program from fiscal year 2005 to 2010.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 1, 2004

  Mr. Vitter (for himself, Mr. Baker, Mr. Jefferson, and Mr. Tauzin) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

                           September 13, 2004

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to extend the 
   authorization of appropriations for the Lake Pontchartrain Basin 
           Restoration Program from fiscal year 2005 to 2010.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 121 (f)(1) 
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1273 (f)(1)) is 
amended by striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2010''.

                                                 Union Calendar No. 415

108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4470

                          [Report No. 108-676]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

    To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to extend the 
   authorization of appropriations for the Lake Pontchartrain Basin 
           Restoration Program from fiscal year 2005 to 2010.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 13, 2004

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
10718.

#### PERKINS *v.*THE STATE.

A conviction of the offense of having possession of intoxicating liquor was authorized by the evidence.

Decided November 4, 1919.

Accusation of misdemeanor; from city court of Mullen—Judge Dekle. June 2, 1919.

A deputy sheriff testified, that he broke the lock of the defendant’s smoke-house and discovered there a keg containing twenty or thirty gallons of'corn beer, and found also a bottle which he smelled and which “had had moonshine liquor in it;” there was no whisky in the bottle; “there may have been a drop or two.” He further testified: The beer “was intoxicating. It was ready for the still; it was working and beading over the top, strong as I ever saw. . . I-did not taste this beer. I say this beer was intoxicating because I have seen whisky run and I know when beer is right to make. I have seen it made and I know corn beer will make you drunk. I know that this corn beer would make you drunk. When I poured this beer out corn, syrup, and water were in it. It was pure corn, whole grain. I never noticed anything else in it. I don’t think there was any meal or mixture in it. Some make it with corn and some with meal. I saw several bottles in there and also some jugs. We did not examine all of them.” There was no other witness. The defendant, in his statement at the trial, said he would not deny that the witness “found a barrel with some syrup and corn in it; it was there in the barrel ■. . fixed for feeding” his hogs; he had been feeding the hogs on it for three months. “They said it would make you drunk;” he did not know about that.

*A. S. Anderson, E. G. Weathers,*for plaintiff in error.

*William Woodrum, solicitor,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

While the evidence in this case is rather weak, the court cannot say as a matter of law that the verdict is without evidence to support it. “The verdict having been approved by the trial judge, under the repeated and uniform rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court, a reviewing court is powerless to interfere. When the verdict is apparently decidedly against the weight of evidence, the trial judge has a wide discretion as to granting or refusing a new trial; but, whenever there is any *329evidence, however sligbt> to support a verdict which has been approved by the trial judge, this court is absolutely without authority to control the judgment of the trial court.” *Bradham*v. *State,*21 *Ga. App.*510 (94 S. E. 618), and citations.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
No. 15,684.

#### Smith v. The Board of Commissioners of Allen County.

*County.*— Liability *to Worlmien Tearing Lown Bridge.*— Liable *Only to a Traveller.*— A county is not liable for any injury to a servant while engaged in teai'ing down one of its bridges, although he works under the immediate charge or control of its agent, who is known to the board of commissioners to be incompetent. For an injury occasioned by an insufficient bridge, it is liable only to a traveller.

From- the Allen Superior Court.

P. *A. Randall, W. J. Vesey, L. M. Ninde*and *W. H. Ninde,*for appellant.

*R. C. Bell*and *S. R. Morris,*for appellee.

*117Miller, J.

This action was brought to recover for personal injuries sustained by the appellee, while engaged as a laborer in tearing down a bridge, preparatory to the construction of a new one.

The appellee, at the time he was injured, was in the employ of the county, working under the personal superintendence of one of the members of the board of commissioners who had charge of the work.

The court sustained a demurrer to each paragraph of the complaint, and this ruling is assigned as error.

The cause of action is stated in various forms in the several paragraphs. The first and second aver that the member of the board, who was in charge of the work, was negligent in the discharge of his duties, and that on account of this negligence the plaintiff was injured.

The third paragraph charges that the board of commissioners negligently selected an incompetent and inexperienced superintendent to supervise the tearing away of the bridge, and that by reason of his incompetence and unskilfulness the plaintiff was injured.

In our opinion the court did not err in sustaining the demurrers to either paragraph of the complaint.

A county is a civil or political division of the State, created by general laws to aid in the administration of the government, and in the absence of a statute imposing special duties with corresponding liabilities, is no more liable for the tortious acts or negligence of its officers and agents than the State. *Abbett*v. *Board, etc.,*114 Ind. 61; *Board, etc.,*v. *Rickel,*106 Ind. 501; *Sherbourne*v. *Yuba Co.,*21 Cal. 113; *Symonds*v. *Board, etc.,*71 Ill. 355; *Hollenbeck*v. *County of Winnebago,*95 Ill. 148; *Estep*v. *Keokuk Co.,*18 Iowa, 199.

The only exception to this rule which has been recognized in this State is the liability of counties for the negligent construction or failure to keep in repair county bridges, the keeping of which in repair is specially imposed upon boards *118of county commissioners by statute. Section 2892, R. S. 1881.

Filed April 6, 1892.

In the case of *Board, etc.,*v. *Rickel, supra,*it was held that this liability exists only in favor of travellers when in the actual use of the bridge.

We are not disposed to extend, this liability beyond the point marked out and established by previous decisions of this court.

We find no error in the record.

Judgment affirmed.
| 2. | The      words “if such termination was for reasons other than Disability (or      death)” are hereby deleted from the first sentence of clause 3.3(a)(i);      and the words “unless the participant’s Termination of Employment was on      account of Disability or death” are hereby deleted from the third sentence      of clause 3.3(a)(ii). |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   | MAXXAM      INC.             |
|--------|--------|------------------------------|
|   |   |                         |
|   | By:    | /s/      M. Emily Madison    |
|   |   | M.      Emily Madison        |
|   |   | Vice      President, Finance |

----
NVLAP LAB BULLETIN NUMBER: LB-112-2019 PAGE: 1 of 1

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology

National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

ISSUE DATE:

May 5, 2020

LAB BULLETIN NUMBER: LB-120-2020

LAP: Efficiency of Electric 

Motors LAP

SUBJECT: Release of NIST Handbook 150-10, 2020 Edition

NIST Handbook 150-10, which presents the technical requirements and guidance for the 

accreditation of laboratories under the NVLAP Efficiency of Electric Motors LAP, has been 

revised. 

The following are the primary changes that have been made with this revision of 

Handbook 150-10:

• the numbering has been updated to reflect that used by ISO/IEC 17025:2017, General 

requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories.

 

• requirements that closely duplicated existing requirements in either ISO/IEC 17025 or NIST 

Handbook 150 have been removed.

The 2020 edition of NIST Handbook 150-10 supersedes and replaces the 2013 edition. It is 

available for downloading (PDF format) from the NVLAP website <http://www.nist.gov/nvlap>

under NVLAP Program-Specific Handbooks. The corresponding NIST Handbook 150-10

Checklist (ISO/IEC 17025:2017) has also been updated and posted on the NVLAP website under 

NVLAP Publications and Forms.

Questions concerning the revised handbook or requirements for accreditation should be directed 

to Timothy Rasinski at 301-975-6697, or <timothy.rasinski@nist.gov>.
#### Wilson Haight and Mary F. Phelps v. Edward Arnold and John W. Ackley.

*Affidavit of non-execution.*

In an action brought before a justice against two persons as partners charging them as makers of a promissory note process was served on only one of the defendants and he filed an affidavit of non-execution reciting that he did not sign the note nor authorize any person-to sign it for him. *Held,*sufficient.

An affidavit of the non-execution of an instrument sued upon should not be construed technically, but should be held sufficient if evidently intended in good faith to meet the plaintiff’s case.

Error to Tan Burén.

Submitted June 7.

Decided June 14.

Assumpsit. Plaintiffs bring error.

Affirmed.

*Jerome Oolemoun*for appellants.

A note on which, suit is brought may be given in evidence unless its execution is denied on oath at the time of pleading: *Burson v. Huntington*21 Mich. 427; this applies also to partnership paper: *Pegg v. Bidleman*5 Mich. 26 ; and plaintiff need not aver partnership: *Danaher v. Hitchcock*34 Mich. 516; the affidavit in this case was insufficient: *Mills v. Bunce*29 Mich. 364.

*William H. Tucker*for appellee.

Cooley, J.

Defendants were sued in justice’s court as-makers of a promissory note. The note was signed “ Arnold *&*Ackley,” and defendants were declared against as partners. Arnold alone was served with process. To cast upon the plaintiffs the burden of proving the note, Arnold made and filed with the justice an affidavit in which, referring to the note which was on file, he affirmed that “ he did not sign the same, neither did he authorize any person to sign it for him.” The justice held that this was not a sufficient *513denial of the execution of tbe note by tbe alleged partnership, and entered up judgment upon it as upon admission. The circuit court reversed the judgment.

It lias seemed to me that this affidavit was evasive, and that Arnold in making it intended to make his denial of individual execution accomplish the purpose of a denial of partnership execution, which perhaps he could not truthfully make. But my brethren think the affidavit sufficient,, and it must be so held. They think that a denial of execution by himself or by any one authorized by him is at least an argumentative denial of execution by any partnership of' which he was a member; and that that was sufficient to put the plaintiffs to the proof of the instrument. We all agree that the affidavit should not be technically construed, but should be held sufficient if in good faith it seemed to be intended to meet the plaintiffs case. *McCormick v. Bay City*23 Mich. 457.

The judgment will be affirmed with costs.

Graves, C. J. and Campbell, J. concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                         499,284
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,283
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               558,671
<PP&E>                                       3,847,944
<DEPRECIATION>                                 536,226
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,920,389
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,115,214
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,256
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,793,919
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,920,389
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  952,936
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (80,449)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             234,201
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,106,688)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,106,688)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,106,688)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>