alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *

 * CRIMINAL NO. 08-00162-CG 

v. *

 * 

KENNETH M. OLDS, M.D. *

 *

Defendant. *

FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE

WHEREAS, on June 6, 2008, a guilty plea was entered by Defendant, KENNETH M.

OLDS, M.D., which guilty plea provided, inter alia, that the Defendant, KENNETH M. OLDS,

M.D., would enter a plea of guilty to Count One and Count Two of the Information filed by the

United States Attorney, charging him with conspiracy to dispense and distribute anabolic

steroids in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 846; and forfeiture in violation of

Title 21, United States Code, Section 853. The defendant agreed in the guilty plea to

immediately forfeit to the United States all of the defendant’s right, title, and interest to all

property which is set forth in Count Two of the Information and which is forfeitable to the

United States pursuant to Title 21 United States Code, Section 853. Pursuant to that guilty plea

the defendant also agreed to execute any and all paperwork to facilitate and expedite the

forfeiture of the property and agreed and consented that the Order of Forfeiture in this case

would become final as to the defendant at any time after the guilty plea and before his sentencing

in accordance with Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(3). Pursuant to the guilty plea,

Defendant, KENNETH M. OLDS, M.D., agreed to and confessed to forfeit the following

property:

Case 1:08-cr-00162-CG Document 26 Filed 04/29/10 Page 1 of 2
2

(1) Drug proceeds in the amount of $17,400.00. (Seventeen thousand

four hundred dollars)

WHEREAS, the United States properly published notice of the forfeiture of the abovedescribed property and the requirements for filing a claim for the property for 30 consecutive

days starting January 30, 2010, on www.forfeiture.gov, A Proof of Publication was filed on

March 1, 2010, (Doc. 18), specifying the details of this publication. No third-parties have come

forward to assert an interest in the subject property in the time required under Title 21, United

States Code Section 853(n). 

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED

that the following property is forfeited to the United States of America pursuant to Title 21,

United States Code, Sections 846 and 853, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b), for

disposition according to law:

(1) Drug proceeds in the amount of $17,400.00. (Seventeen thousand

four hundred dollars)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States shall retain jurisdiction in the case

for the purpose of enforcing this Order; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall forward two (2) certified

copies of this Order to Assistant United States Attorney George F. May.

DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of April, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cr-00162-CG Document 26 Filed 04/29/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Edmund W. Hunt v. George N. Potter.

*Damages Try removal of machinery from freehold.*

Where a lease empowers a tenant to put in machinery and remove it at the expiration of his lease, the tenant cannot be held liable for such necessary damage to the freehold as is occasioned by removing the machinery with due care; especially if the particular damage is not specially counted on and proven.

Error to Eaton.

Submitted Oct. 19.

Decided Oct. 26.

Case. Plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

*Creme*c6 *Dodge*and *M. V. Montgomery*for plaintiff in error.

*F. A. Foote*for defendant in error. ■

Marston, 0. J.

The defendant rented from the plaintiff a certain mill building for a term of five years, with, a right to repair the same and put certain machinery therein, with the privilege of removing all such machinery at the expiration of his term. About the time his term was to — but before it did — expire, he removed the machinery, and this action was brought to recover damages for breaking and entering the mill building and for breaking, injuring and destroying the flume and other portions of the building, and for carrying away certain parts of the machinery.

The court charged the jury that if the defendant took away any machinery or fixtures other than what he had placed therein he would be liable therefor, but that in this action damages done to the freehold in removing the machinery could not be recovered,- and we are of opinion that the instructions so given were correct. It does not appear that the defendant took any machinery out other than what he had a right to remove under his lease, and it does not appear, nor is it charged in the declaration, that he did not exercise due care and caution, or that he did any *198unnecessary damage, in removing- what he had a right to take out. In giving the defendant the right to remove whatever machinery he should have put in, the right to do-some damage and injury to the freehold in making the removal was impliedly given also, and if he did no unnecessary damage he would not be liable therefor. If he did, it should have been counted on and proven, neither of which appears to have been done in this case.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
Exhibit 32.2

 

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

In connection with the Annual Report of The Monarch Cement Company (the"Company") on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the "Report"), theundersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects,the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to The MonarchCement Company and will be retained by The MonarchCement Company and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

Dated:  March 13, 2006

                                                                                              /s/ Debra P. Roe                                                                                                                      Debra P. Roe, CPA                                                                                            Chief Financial Officer and                                                                                            Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
Director Compensation Summary



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 Director Compensation Summary 
  

Annual Retainer – Each non-employee director not designated by General Electric Company (“GE”) (each, an “Eligible
Director”) is paid an annual fee of $160,000 in quarterly installments, following the end of each quarter of service. Of this amount, 40% (or $64,000) of the annual fee is paid in cash and 60% (or $96,000) is paid in deferred stock units
(“DSUs”). Instead of receiving a cash payment, directors may elect to have up to 100% of their annual fee paid in DSUs. 
  
 Fees for Committee Chairs – As additional compensation for service as chairperson, the chairperson of the Audit Committee will receive an
annual cash retainer of $15,000. All other standing committee chairpersons will receive an annual cash retainer of $10,000. 
  
 Matching Gift Program – Each Eligible Director will be eligible for the matching of charitable contributions on a dollar-for-dollar basis up
to a maximum matching contribution of $15,000 during any calendar year pursuant to the contribution guidelines established by the Genworth Foundation. 
  
 Reimbursement of Certain Expenses – In addition to reimbursement of director travel expenses to attend board and committee meetings in
accordance with policies approved from time to time by the NCGC, Genworth will, with prior approval of the chair of the NCGC, reimburse Eligible Directors for the expenses of attending director education seminars. 
  
 Compensation for Directors Designated by GE – Any director who is
designated by GE (as holder of Genworth’s Class B Common Stock) but who is not a current employee of GE may receive reasonable compensation from GE, as determined by GE in its sole discretion. 
  
 No Compensation for Other Directors – Directors who
are employees of Genworth or GE or their respective affiliates will not receive compensation for serving on Genworth’s Board. 
  
 The compensation arrangements set forth above are effective immediately, except with respect to the matching gift program, which shall become effective
January 1, 2006.
El Sistema de Gestión de Calidad en que se apoyan los servicios 

de medición, según se define en una moción del Grupo de 

Trabajo del Sistema de Calidad (QSTF), ha sido revisado y se 

ha determinado que cumple con los requisitos de ISO/IEC 

17025:2017, bajo mandato del Sistema Interamericano de 

Metrología en apoyo de las expectativas del Acuerdo de 

Reconocimiento Mutuo del CIPM.

Georgette Macdonald, Quality System Task Force Chair

Claire Saundry, President, SIM

APROBACIÓN DEL SISTEMA DE 

GESTIÓN DE LA CALIDAD

APPROVAL OF 

QUALITY MANAGEMENT 

SYSTEM 

National Institute of Standards and Technology – The United States of 

America 

Mass and Force

The Quality Management System supporting measurement 

services, as defined in a motion of the Quality System Task 

Force (QSTF), has been reviewed and found to be in 

conformance with the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025:2017, 

under the mandate of the Inter-American Metrology System in 

support of the expectations of the CIPM Mutual Recognition 

Arrangement.

Approval date: 24 September 2019

Expiration date: 24 September 2024
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 452

To direct the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to 

designate New Jersey Task Force 1 as part of the National Urban 

Search and Rescue System. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2003

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN (for himself, Mr. HOLT, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. FERGUSON, 

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. 

PALLONE, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. ROTHMAN, 

and Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To direct the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to designate New Jersey Task Force 1 

as part of the National Urban Search and Rescue System.

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

3 SECTION 1. ADDITION OF TEAM TO NATIONAL URBAN 

4 SEARCH AND RESCUE SYSTEM. 

5 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 
2

•HR 452 IH 

1 (1) The terrorist attacks of September 11, 

2 2001, demonstrated the importance of enhancing na3 tional domestic terrorism preparedness. 

4 (2) 26 of the 28 urban search and rescue teams 

5 included in the National Urban Search and Rescue 

6 System of the Federal Emergency Management 

7 Agency were called into action in the wake of the 

8 events of September 11th. 

9 (3) Highly-qualified, urban search and rescue 

10 teams not included in the National Urban Search 

11 and Rescue System were the first teams in New 

12 York City on September 11th. 

13 (4) The continuing threat of a possible domestic 

14 terrorist attack remains an important mission for 

15 which the Nation must prepare to respond. 

16 (5) Part of that response should be to increase 

17 the number of urban search and rescue teams in18 cluded in National Urban Search and Rescue Sys19 tem. 

20 (b) ADDITION OF NEW JERSEY TASK FORCE 1.—

21 The Director of the Federal Emergency Management 

22 Agency shall designate New Jersey Task Force 1 as part 

23 of the National Urban Search and Rescue System.

Æ
Exhibit
32 .1





Certification
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Imagenetix, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William P.
Spencer, 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, to the best of my knowledge:





1)
            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:
      February 8, 2010
              s/WILLIAM P. SPENCERWilliam
      P. SpencerChief
      Executive Officer and
President
RGTM 10223 Page 1 of 1

DATE: 28 June 2022

Product Identifier

RGTM Number: 10223

RGTM Name: MPXV Synthetic DNA PCR Standards

Under the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 29 CFR 1910.1200, 

this Research Grade Test Material (RGTM) is NOT classified as a physical hazard or a health hazard, a simple 

asphyxiant, combustible dust, pyrophoric gas, or hazard not otherwise classified. There are no hazard pictograms, 

hazard statements or signal word associated with it. Safety Data Sheet information is not required. This document 

may be used in conjunction with your hazard communication program.

Exemption: 1910.1200(b)(6)(xii). This RGTM is a biological material and should be considered a potential 

biological hazard.

Description: RGTM 10223 is FOR RESEARCH USE, intended for the harmonization of Monkeypox assays. This 

material DOES NOT CONTAIN ACTUAL VIRUS. A unit of RGTM 10223 consists of one 200 μL vial containing 

linearized plasmid DNA in Tris-EDTA buffer with yeast tRNA; and one 1000 μL vial containing Tris-EDTA buffer 

with yeast tRNA.

Additional Notes for Biomaterials: Since there is no consensus on the infectivity of extracted nucleic acid, handle 

RGTM 10223 components as Biosafety Level 1 materials potentially capable of transmitting infectious disease, as 

recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Disposal: RGTM 10223 components and derived solutions should be disposed of in accordance with local, state, and 

federal regulations.

Transport Information: This material is not regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or 

International Air Transport Association (IATA).

Disclaimer: The NIST information in this document is specific to the NIST product and is believed to be correct, 

based upon our current knowledge. This document may not necessarily be all inclusive and should be used only as a 

guide. NIST does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this information. The only official source for specific 

values and uncertainties is the certificate or report.

Users of this RGTM should ensure that this document and the corresponding documentation in their possession are 

current. This can be accomplished by contacting the SRM Program: telephone (301) 975-2200; 

e-mail srmmsds@nist.gov; or via the Internet at https://www.nist.gov/srm.
Exhibit 32.2
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
     In connection with the Quarterly Report of AMDL, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for theperiod ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Arthur S. Rosten, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. §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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    /s/ Arthur S. Rosten   Arthur S. Rosten Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,173
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             892
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,375
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     22,453
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           7,502
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             7,575
<LOANS>                                         28,887
<ALLOWANCE>                                        604
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  67,960
<DEPOSITS>                                      58,090
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                211
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           600
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,507
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  67,960
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,993
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,280
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   216
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,489
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,073
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,075
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,414
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    472
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,095
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,095
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       773
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     6.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.36
<LOANS-NON>                                        188
<LOANS-PAST>                                        24
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    10
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   600
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        5
<RECOVERIES>                                         9
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  604
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            604
        

</TABLE>
#### John T. G. Gault *v.*Annie C. Courtney.

T rusts — Conveyance—Title.

Where a testator devised property in trust for his wife with power in a trustee to convey the land to the wife on her written request, a deed by the trustee and the wife, who was a feme sole, passed title to the property.

APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

November 1, 1873.

*Marshall, for appellant.*

*Bodley, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

R.W. Miller, under the will of John Howard, deceased, held the legal title to the property devised to appellee, in trust for her sole and separate use, with power to pass it to her upon her written request.

By deed executed Dec. 18, 1845, said Miller in compliance with appellee’s written request and in the exercise of the discretion vested in him by the testator, did convey the title to appellee and her then husband', Robert G. Courtney. Courtney, by last will and testament, admitted to probate in 1864, devised all interest taken by him under Miller’s deed, to appellee.

At the time Miller surrendered the trust, the law authorized feme coverts to sell and convey their separate estates. It is evident that the reason for the appointment of a trustee was that the testator not only desired to protect his daughter against the improvidence of any husband that she might have, but also to prevent her from selling her estate without the approval and concurrence of her trustee. The continuance of this disability was made to depend upon the discretion of the trustee. He removed it shortly after the appellee’s marriage, and invested her and her husband with full and complete power of alienation. If it be possible that an 'estate thus held is embraced by the provisions of Sec. 17, Art. 4, Chap. 47, Rev. Stat., it seems to us that it will defeat the evident intention of the testator to hold that Mrs. Courtney, who is now discovert, cannot pass title to, the same with the concurrence and approval of the chosen trustee. He does concur and approves the sale to appellant, as is manifested by his deed of March 28, 1873.

The judgment of the chancellor is affirmed.