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

                                   CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                      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 Mendocino Partners, Inc.
(the  "Company)  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ended March 31,  2004,  Jehu
Hand hereby certifies,  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
his knowledge:

            (1)   The quarterly  report fully complies with the  requirements of
                  Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Jehu Hand

Jehu Hand
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
(principal executive and financial officer
September 1, 2004





<PAGE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"Conflict Resolution Week - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"C42HFpy8wJ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/crw2022\/\">Conflict Resolution Week<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/crw2022\/embed\/#?secret=C42HFpy8wJ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Conflict Resolution Week” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"C42HFpy8wJ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/hoffman-eileen.png"}
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. JAMES PAUL WRIGHT, Defendant

- Appellant. No. 20

- 5080 (D.C. No s . 4:20

- CV

- 00237

- GKF

- FHM & 4:12

- CR

- 00197

- GKF

- 1 ) (N.D. Okla.)

_________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMEN T *

_________________________________ Before PHILLIPS , McHUGH , and ROSSMAN , Circuit Judges.

_________________________________ On July 7, 2022, this court granted a certificate of appealability ( COA ) and ordered supplemental briefing on one issue: whether attempted Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under the elements clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) . In response, the parties have filed a Joint Motion to Remand, asking this court to remand th is matter to the district court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) ; 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G) . The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for it s persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1

. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### August 15, 2022 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 20-5080 Document: 010110724361 Date Filed: 08/15/2022 Page: 12 United States v. Taylor , 142 S. Ct. 2015 (2022)

. For good cause shown, this motion is granted. In dismissing Mr. Wright’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and den ying him a COA, the district court reasoned that “every circuit court to have considered the issue has concluded an attempted Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under the elements clause.” R. vol. I at 211. But in Taylor , the Supreme Court unequivo cally rul ed that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under the elements clause: “Whatever one might say about completed Hobbs Act robbery, attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not satisfy the elements clause.” 142 S. Ct. at 2020

. Rather th an address in the first instance what Taylor means for Mr. Wright’s § 2255 motion, we remand his case to the district court for further consideration in light of Taylor

. The Clerk shall issue the mandate forthwith.

Entered for the Court Per Curiam Appellate Case: 20-5080 Document: 010110724361 Date Filed: 08/15/2022 Page: 2
770 S.E.2d 398

#### The STATE, Petitioner, v. Richard LEWIS, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2013-001571.

No. 27511.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard March 4, 2015.

Decided March 25, 2015.

Attorney General Alan M. Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, both of Columbia, for Petitioner.

C. Rauch Wise, of Greenwood, for Respondent.

*648PER CURIAM.

We granted certiorari to review the court of appeals’ decision in *State v. Lewis,*403 S.C. 345, 743 S.E.2d 124 (Ct.App.2013). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey A. PLEASANT, a/k/a Jeffrey A. Pleasants, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-7681.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 14, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2016.

Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey A. Pleasant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s 2003 order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certifícate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pleasant has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BUSINESSES OF PACTIV CORPORATION COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               4
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      145
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        422
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   857
<PP&E>                                           2,030
<DEPRECIATION>                                     487
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,755
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              898
<BONDS>                                          1,405
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,825
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,755
<SALES>                                          2,067
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,067
<CGS>                                            1,423
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,423
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   398
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    147
<INCOME-TAX>                                        62
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 84
<DISCONTINUED>                                      62
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       146
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .87


</TABLE>
100 A.3d 539

#### IN THE MATTER OF FRED R. BRAVERMAN, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 013841980).

October 30, 2014.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 14-030, concluding that FRED R. BRAVER-MAN of CHERRY HILL, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1980, should be reprimanded for violating *RPC*1.1(a) (gross neglect), *RPC*1.3 (lack of diligence), *RPC*1.4(b) (failure to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter), *RPC*3.2 (failure to expedite litigation), *RPC*8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities), and *RPC*8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that FRED R. BRAVERMAN is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Secretary of Labor v. Cumberland Coal Resources, LP, Docket Nos. PENN 2004-73-R, PENN 2004-74-R, PENN 2004-75-R, PENN 2004-85-R, PENN 2004-86-R, PENN 2004-87-R, PENN 2004-88-R, PENN 2004-104-R, PENN 2004-105-R, PENN 2004-181, and PENN 2005-8.              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Cumberland Coal Resources, LP, Docket Nos. PENN 2004-73-R, PENN 2004-74-R, PENN 2004-75-R, PENN 2004-85-R, PENN 2004-86-R, PENN 2004-87-R, PENN 2004-88-R, PENN 2004-104-R, PENN 2004-105-R, PENN 2004-181, and PENN 2005-8.

argument_051106.pdf

fmshrc051106_decoy.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                         NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                         323
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               323
<PP&E>                                         650
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 973
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      937,600
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                  (936,627)
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   973
<SALES>                                     71,837
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            71,837
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (93,977)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            165,814
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        165,814
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               165,814
<EPS-BASIC>                                 0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.08



</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.17



Mr. Albert Morrison
Morrison, Brown, Argiz & Co.
1001 Brickell Bay Drive
9th Floor
Miami, Florida  33131

Re:  Repayment of Loan

Dear Albert:

        This letter will memorialize our recent conversations regarding the
repayment of your promissory note in the principal amount of $51,250.00 to Logic
Devices Incorporated (the "Company") which came due July 24, 1998 (the "Note").
Defined terms used herein will have the meanings ascribed to them in the Note
unless otherwise defined herein. In consideration of the foregoing and for other
good and valuation consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, you and the Company agree as follows:

1. The Maturity Date will be extended to July 24, 1999.

2. Default Interest will continue to accrue on the Note until payment and will
be paid on the extended Maturity Date.

3. The principal and the accrued and unpaid Interest on which Default Interest
is based was $60,409.78 on July 24, 1998.

4. At the point when, prior to the extended Maturity Date, the Nasdaq NMS market
price of the shares of common stock of the Company reaches $3.25 on a last sale
basis on a given trading day, you agree to sell the shares of common stock which
you purchased with the proceeds of the Note as promptly as practicable and
consistent with existing market conditions. If the market price drops below
$3.25, further sales will not be required until the closing price reaches this
point again.

5. All proceeds from any sales by you of the Company's common stock purchased
with the proceeds of the Note will be promptly remitted to the Company in
payment of the amounts owing to the Company under the Note until such Note has
been paid in full. Thereafter, any further sales will no longer be subject to
Section 4 above and you will be entitled to retain all the proceeds from any
such additional sales.

6. The terms of the Notes, as modified hereunder, will continue in full force
and effect, and the Company retains all rights and remedies available to it
thereunder.



                                       50
<PAGE>   2

WITHOUT IMPLICATION THAT ANY SUCH CONSENT IS REQUIRED, YOU HEREBY WAIVE THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(f) OF THE REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND
THE COMPANY REGARDING ANY FUTURE REGISTRATIONS OF THE COMPANY'S SECURITIES.

    If the foregoing is acceptable to you, please sign and return the duplicate
original of this letter agreement to my attention.

                                             Yours truly,


                                             /s/ William Volz
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             William Volz
                                             President



Accepted and Agreed:


  /s/ Albert Morrison
-----------------------
Albert Morrison


January 8, 1999



                                       51
FacebookTwitterYouTubeEmail
							CareersFAQsContact UsSite Map

HOW CAN WE HELP YOU?
		Search for:
	HomeAbout UsMission & ValuesThe Agency helps build better relationships through joint problem-solving and constructive responses to inevitable conflict.Our HistoryAgency DepartmentsOffice of the DirectorOffice of Procurement and Operational SupportOffice of Human ResourcesOffice of BudgetOffice of Information TechnologyOffice of FinanceOffice of the General CounselOffice of Field Operations (Regional)Office of Client ServicesOffice of Field Operations (National)Office of National ProjectsOffice of Conflict Management & Prevention/InternationalCenter for Conflict Resolution EducationOffice of Field AdministrationOffice of Policy and StrategyOffice of Congressional and Public AffairsOffice of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)LocationPhone: (202) 606-8100 
Fax: (202) 606-4251ServicesResolving Labor-Management DisputesCollective Bargaining MediationGrievance MediationAlternative Bargaining ProcessesTechnology Assisted Group Solutions -TAGSBuilding Labor-Management RelationshipsEffective Contract AdministrationEffective  CommunicationsLabor-Management Partnership BuildingOrganizational DevelopmentRepairing Broken RelationshipsAlternative Dispute Resolution for GovernmentWorkplace MediationAdministrative Program DisputesFacilitationDispute Resolution Systems DesignRegulatory NegotiationsPublic Policy DialoguesEducation and OutreachSkills Development TrainingFMCS InstituteFMCS Collaboration with UniversitiesInternational ServicesConferences and WorkshopsArbitrationRequesting a PanelArbitration Policies and ProceduresInformation for FMCS Roster ArbitratorsInformation on Joining the Arbitrator RosterArbitration Contact InformationResourcesFMCS CalendarForms & Applications for FMCS ServicesMediation Agreement FormsArbitrationNotice to FMCS of Upcoming Collective Bargaining (F-7)Labor-Management Grants ProgramFOIA RequestsDocuments and DataMulti-MediaListen to the Conflict Resolutionary PodcastFMCS 101 Video SeriesSpeeches & PresentationsFAQsNLMC InfoVirtual Services
Search for:  Protected: Private: test button

															Home/Protected: Private: test button Protected: Private: test buttonD2023-03-14T16:28:22-04:00
			
			This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:
Password: Copyright 2020 FMCS | All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy  |  EEO/No FEAR Act  |  PAR  |  Terms of Use  |  FOIA  |  Section 508 |  SORNs
FacebookTwitterYouTubeEmail
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3408 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3408

To clarify that the scope of the National Endowment for the Humanities 
              includes the study of civics and government.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 2021

   Mr. Kildee (for himself, Mrs. Hinson, Mr. Hill, Ms. Jayapal, Ms. 
 Norton, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Reed, Ms. Scanlon, and Mr. Takano) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education 
                               and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To clarify that the scope of the National Endowment for the Humanities 
              includes the study of civics and government.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Promoting Programming, Research, 
Education and Preservation in Civics and Government Act'' or the ``PREP 
Civics and Government Act''.

SEC. 2. CIVICS AND GOVERNMENT INCLUDED IN HUMANITIES.

    Section 3(a) of the National Foundation on the Arts and the 
Humanities Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 952(a)) is amended by inserting 
``civics and government;'' after ``history;''.
                                 <all>
```