alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FINAL: Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB); Version 1, September 9, 2021 1

OSAC Anti-Harassment Policy

General Principles: OSAC is committed to providing safe and professional participation for all 

members and affiliates. We believe that everyone has the right to professional interaction 

without fear, intimidation, or belittlement, and that everyone has the right to fair and equal 

participation and treatment.

Our strength as an organization is our people, and we cherish their diversity. We value all our 

members and affiliates and will not accept any treatment that conflicts with this commitment 

in any OSAC activity or undertaking. OSAC meeting events are to provide a harassment-free 

experience for everyone, regardless of race, religion, gender, gender identity and expression, 

sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, and body size. We have a zero-tolerance 

policy for hostile or harassing conduct of meeting participants. OSAC participants violating this 

policy may be censured, suspended or terminated from participation in OSAC.

Definition: Harassment includes verbal comments reasonably perceived as offensive and 

related to race, religion, gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, 

physical appearance, or body size; non-forensic-related sexual images in public spaces; 

deliberate intimidation; stalking; unwelcome photography or recording; sustained disruption of 

talks or other events; inappropriate physical contact; and unwelcome sexual attention. 

Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to comply immediately.

Consequences: If a participant engages in harassing behavior, the FSSB per the FSSB Procedure 

for Censure, Suspension or Termination may censure, suspend or terminate the OSAC member 

or affiliate. 

Reporting Hostile or Harassing Conduct: OSAC participants who believe that they or anyone 

else is being harassed or who have other concerns in this regard, are encouraged to contact the 

FSSB Chair or the OSAC Program Office.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, the undersigned officer of MONONGAHELA
POWER COMPANY (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge,
that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.


                                             /s/ Paul J. Evanson
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Paul J. Evanson
September 24, 2003                           Principal Executive Officer
Exhibit 10(B)



 






EXHIBIT 10(B)




FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION

EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

(2003 Amendment and Restatement)




          WHEREAS, The Progressive Corporation Executive Deferred Compensation Plan is currently
maintained pursuant to a 2003 Amendment and Restatement and the First through Third Amendments
thereto (“Plan”); and




          WHEREAS, it is deemed desirable to amend the Plan further;




          NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended in the respects hereinafter set forth:




               1. Effective September 1, 2005, Section 3.4 of the Plan is hereby amended
and restated in its entirety to provide as follows:


3.4 Form of Distribution.





Distributions of Deferrals of Restricted Stock Awards granted in 2005 and later
years shall be made in Stock, with any fractional shares of Stock and any portion of
such distribution that is derived from cash dividends on deferred Restricted Stock
Awards to be made in cash. All other Plan distributions shall be made in cash.



               2. Effective September 1, 2005, the last sentence in Article 3, Section
3.5 shall be deleted and replaced by the following provisions:



          The provisions of Section 3.4 shall apply to all withdrawals under this Section 3.5.




               3. Effective December 1, 2005, the following is hereby added to the Plan
as new paragraph (k) of Section 2.2:




	 	“(k)	 	Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Section
2.2 or any other provisions of the Plan, each Eligible Executive who elected to
defer any portion of a Gainsharing Award that became payable or will become
payable in 2005 or 2006 or a Restricted Stock Award granted in 2005 may revoke
such election. Such revocation shall be in writing on such forms as the
Committee shall prescribe and must be received by the Committee on or before
December 30, 2005.





               4. Except as expressly provided in this Amendment, the terms and
provisions of the Plan shall remain entirely unchanged and continue in full force and effect.



          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto caused this Amendment to be executed by its
duly authorized representative effective as of the date set forth above.




	 	 	 
	 

	 	THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	By: /s/ Charles E. Jarrett
	 

	 	Title: Vice President
##### 



Exhibit 32-5

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Chairman, President, Chief Executive and Chief
Operating Officer of Michigan Consolidated Gas Company (the Company),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:



|(1) |  | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended
December 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m or 78o(d)); 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: March 1, 2004 |  | /s/ ANTHONY F. EARLEY, JR.

Anthony F. Earley, Jr.
Chairman, President, Chief Executive and
Chief Operating Officer of
Michigan Consolidated Gas Company
EXHIBIT 12



COMPUTATION IN SUPPORT OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

For Years Ended December 31

(Dollar Amounts in Thousands)



|                                                  |  | Monongahela Power Company
|------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------
|                                                  |  | 2002                     
|Earnings:                                         |  |                          
|Income from continuing operations                 |  | $                        
|Fixed charges (see below)                         |  |                          
|Income taxes                                      |  |                          
|Amortization of capitalized interest              |  |                          
|Income distributions of equity investees          |  |                          
|Less: capitalized interest                        |  |                          
|Less: income from unconsolidated equity investees |  |                          
|                                                  |  |                          
|Total Earnings (as defined)                       |  | $                        
|                                                  |  |                          
|                                                  |  |                          
|Fixed Charges:                                    |  |                          
|Interest expensed and capitalized                 |  | $                        
|Estimated interest component of rental expense    |  |                          
|                                                  |  |                          
|Total Fixed Charges (as defined)                  |  | $                        
|                                                  |  |                          
|                                                  |  |                          
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                |  |                          

---

|* |  | Excludes extraordinary charge and change in accounting principle.
|- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------

|** |  | Excludes the effect of the extraordinary charge.
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

I,Steven E. Shebik, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: November 10, 2004 |
|-------------------------|
|                    |
|                    |
|                    | /s/ Steven E. Shebik |   |
|                    |
|                    | Steven E. Shebik |
|                    | Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |

 

E-4

----
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

vs. CRIMINAL NO. 08-00380-CG

KEINAN HOWARD,

Defendant/Petitioner. 

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s § 2255 petition (Doc. 

84) which the Court interprets as asserting a claim for relief pursuant to 

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). In response, the United States 

filed a motion to dismiss the petition (Doc. 86), arguing that Howard has no

claim under Johnson and that the motion should therefore be dismissed as timebarred.

In Johnson, the Supreme Court held that imposing an increased 

sentence under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) 

violates the Constitution's guarantee of due process. The ACCA applies to

convictions of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Howard was convicted of bank 

robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113) and use of a firearm in a crime of violence (18 

U.S.C. § 924(c)). The ACCA does not apply to either offense He was 

sentenced on June 5, 2009, and did not file a direct appeal. Judgment 

therefore became final 14 days after June 5, 2009, and the applicable statute 

of limitations for filing a § 2255 petition expired in June 2010. 28 U.S.C. 

Case 1:08-cr-00380-CG-C Document 88 Filed 06/28/16 Page 1 of 2
2

§2255(f)(1)(petitioner must file the motion within one year of “the date on 

which the judgment of conviction becomes final”); see also Fed.R.App.P. 

4(b)(1)(A)(i); Mederos v. United States, 218 F.3d 1252, 1253 (11th Cir 

2000)(in a § 2255 action where no appeal is filed, the judgment becomes final 

when the time for filing an appeal expires).

Howard filed this motion more than 4 years after his conviction 

became final. Because Johnson is not applicable to Howard’s case, the 

Supreme Court holding in Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257, 1265 

(2016)- that Johnson is a new substantive rule and thus applies retroactively 

to cases on collateral review – has no application in this case. Therefore, the 

one-year statute of limitations applicable to § 2255 petitions applies, and 

Howard’s motion is untimely. 1

Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dismiss the petition is 

GRANTED and the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of June, 2013.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 1 Howard also seems to suggest that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Alleyne 

v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151(2013) and Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 

338 (2007) somehow re-start the one-year limitations period. His motion was 

not filed within one year of either of these cases.

Case 1:08-cr-00380-CG-C Document 88 Filed 06/28/16 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,976,308
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,494,072
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,031,436
<PP&E>                                       1,543,459
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,883,788
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,396,943
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,731
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,376,611
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,883,788
<SALES>                                      7,084,015
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,084,015
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,302,355
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (79,786)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,648
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (143,202)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (55,133)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (88,069)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (88,069)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 20037 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSE DE JESUS ARELLANO

- GONZALEZ, also known as Chuy La Perra , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:17

- CR

- 399

- 1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose De Jesus Arellano

- Gonzalez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Arellano

- Gonzalez h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 16, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-20037 Document: 00514683862 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/16/2018No. 18

- 20037

2 presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate r eview. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-20037 Document: 00514683862 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/16/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *

*

vs. * CRIM. NO. 07- 00349-CG

*

ELDA LOPEZ, *

*

Defendant *

FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE

WHEREAS, on January 12, 2009, by Special Verdict, pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(4)

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the trial jury determined that the defendant obtained

$4,000,000.00 in proceeds from the offense in Count One as set forth in Count Twenty-Four of

the Superseding Indictment, for which the defendant has been convicted, and

WHEREAS, the United States filed a Motion for a Final Order of Forfeiture which would

consist of a personal money judgment against the defendant in the amount of $4,000,000.00, and

WHEREAS, Rule 32.2(c)(1) provides that “no ancillary proceeding is required to the

extent that the forfeiture consists of a money judgment.”

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that

the defendant shall forfeit to the United States the sum of $4,000,000.00 pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §

853.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States District Court shall retain jurisdiction

in the case for the purpose of enforcing this Order; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(3), this order of forfeiture

shall become final as to the defendant at the time of sentencing and shall be made part of the

Case 1:07-cr-00349-CG-N Document 111 Filed 02/13/09 Page 1 of 2
sentence and included in the judgment; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States may, at any time, move pursuant to

Rule 32.2(e) to amend this order of forfeiture to substitute property having a value not to exceed

$4,000,000.00 to satisfy the money judgment in whole or in part; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall forward three certified

copies of this order to Assistant United States Attorney Gloria A. Bedwell.

DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of February, 2009.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cr-00349-CG-N Document 111 Filed 02/13/09 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

I, Jeffrey J. Fox,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of WillametteValley Vineyards, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30,2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such 10-Qfairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Willamette Valley Vineyards Inc.

 

Date: August 14,2008

 
| By:    | /s/  Jeffrey J. Fox |   |
|--------|---------------------|--------|
| Name:  | Jeffrey J. Fox      |   |
| Title: | Controller          |   |
|        |                     |        |  |

 

----
USER AGREEMENT FOR NIST MEASUREMENT SOFTWARE 

Please read the following User Agreement carefully before installing or using NIST

Measurement Software comprised of the software packages StatistiCAL, MultiCal, Characteristic

Impedance Measurement Software, NISTCal, and CausalCat Software. By installing or using any

of the NIST Measurement Software, you agree to be bound by this user agreement. 

 NIST Measurement Software is provided to you or your company (the USER) by the National

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce,

Gaithersburg MD 20899, USA. The NIST Measurement Software bears no warranty, either

express or implied. NIST does not assume legal liability nor responsibility for a USER's use of

NIST-derived NIST Measurement Software or the results of such use. 

 NIST Measurement Software contains work which was created by Government employees and

is therefore not subject to copyright. The USER fully understands and agrees that any

modification or selling of the NIST Measurement Software or any associated documentation,

including but not limited to the contents of this document or User's Manuals, is strictly

prohibited. 

USER shall not use the name of NIST or the Department of Commerce on any advertisement,

product or service which is directly or indirectly related to NIST Measurement Software or

associated documentation without the prior written approval of NIST. NIST does not directly or

indirectly endorse any product or service provided, or to be provided, by USER, its successors,

assignees, or licensees. USER shall not in any way imply that the results obtained from USER's

utilization of NIST Measurement Software are an endorsement of these results or any such

product or service. 

The authors of the NIST Measurement Software request all USERs to acknowledge NIST in the

publication of any results obtained using NIST Measurement Software. A list of appropriate

citations are listed in the User's Manual. 

In order to obtain updates to NIST Measurement Software and related documentation from

NIST, USERs must register their copies of the software by contacting the authors or their

designees.