alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U, S, TREASURY DEPARTMENT—INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

RETURN OF INFORMATION AND AUTHORIZATION AND
rorm 1122 CONSENT OF SUBSIDIARY CORPORATION INCLUDED INA | L963
UNITED STATES CONSOLIDATED INCOME TAX RETURN [oo nx witen suze some

FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1963

or other taxable year beginning —

If return is for calendar '
year 1963, file on or before | ond ending ______— -

iar ana ar al PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT PLAINLY
calendar year, file on or | NAME
before 15th day of third
month following close of
such taxable year.

Number and street

Employer Identification No. City oF town, State

1, Date incorporated

2, Place incorporated

~~ | (@) Common — (b) Preferred

$ $

3. Capital stock outstanding at beginning of taxable year

4. Kind of business —_
OO Active 7] Inactive

5. Name of common parent corporation (Give name of corporation which filed the consolidated income tax return for the entire affiliated
group)

6. Address of common parent corporation

1, District Director’s Office in which consolidated return is filed

The above-named subsidiary corporation hereby (1) authorizes the above-named common parent corporation to make
a consolidated income tax return on its behalf for the taxable year for which this form is filed and (2) authorizes such
common parent corporation (or, in the event of its failure, the Commissioner or the District Director of Internal Revenue)
to make a consolidated income tax return on its behalf for each taxable year thereafter for which a consolidated return
must be made by the affiliated group under the provisions of the consolidated return regulations.

The above-named subsidiary corporation, in consideration of the privilege of joining in the making of a consolidated
return with the above-named common parent corporation, hereby consents to and agrees to be bound by the provisions of
the above-mentioned regulations.

SIGNATURE AND VERIFICATION
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that the above-named subsidiary has authorized me to sign this form on its behalf, and that
this form has been examined by me and the information contained herein is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, correct, and
complete.

Corporate
Seal

Title

Date Signature

INSTRUCTIONS

Duplicate originals of this form must be prepared by each subsidiary corporation for each taxable year for which a consolidated return
is made by the affiliated group. One of these forms must be attached to the consolidated income tax return as part thereof; the other must
be filed (at or before the time the consolidated income tax return is filed) in the office of the district director for the district prescribed for the
filing of a separate return by the subsidiary.

4 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE :1969-—-O-693-570
CERTIFICATION

I, Michael J. Clarke, Chief Financial Officer of
Chelsea Property Group, Inc. ("the Company"), pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify as follows:

|1. | The annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,
2003 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 such Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Certification this 26th
day of February, 2004.

| | /s/ Michael J. Clarke
Michael J. Clarke
Chief Financial Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Chelsea Property Group, Inc. and will be retained by
Chelsea Property Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANDREW THOMPSON

, Appellant,

v.

THE MANORS OF INVERRARY CONDO XI ASSOC IATION , INC.

, Appellee.

No. 4D 21

- 525

[ May 6, 2021 ]

Appeal from the County Court for the Seven teenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Florence Taylor Barner , Judge; L .T. Case No s

. CACE20

- 6440 and COCE18

- 12072

Andrew Thompson, Fort Lauderdale, pro se.

No appearance for appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, D AMOORGIAN and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 10.1

Description of the 2008 Management Bonus Plans

In 2008 key employees of Georgia Gulf Corporation ("Georgia Gulf'), including Messrs. Seal, Beerman, Doherty and Shannon, the named executive officers and
Mr. Carrico, the CEO,(each, a "Participant," and collectively, the "Participants"), will participate in our management bonus plans, including the Senior Executive Bonus Plan and the Management
Incentive Plan (the "Plans"). The objective of the Plans is to motivate the performance of the Participants by creating the potential for increased compensation tied directly to company profit and to
individual performance. In December 2007, the Compensation Committee assigned bonus points to each Participant, set primarily by reference to his salary level, which, for the CEO, were equal to
80 percent of his base salary, and for each other Participant, were equal to 50 to 60 percent of his base salary. Seventy percent of the total opportunity is derived from the Senior
Executive Bonus Plan with the remainder from the Management Incentive Plan. The Compensation Committee also established a corporate target for 2008 earnings which is an EBIT (earnings before interest
and taxes) return representing a profitable return on the company's asset base.

Under
the terms of the Senior Executive Bonus Plan, if the corporate target is reached, the Participants receive a payment equal to 100 percent of their points awarded. If the
corporate target is not reached, payments are ratably reduced to a minimum target, which is equal to half of the corporate target or a risk-free rate of return (e.g., 10 year
Treasury Bill), in which case Participants receive a payment equal to 10 percent of their points awarded. If the corporate target is surpassed, payments are ratably increased to a maximum,
which is double the Participants' points where earnings equal one and one-third times the corporate target.

Under
the terms of the Management Incentive Plan, each participant's total annual cash incentive payment is determined at the discretion of the Committee in which individual performance
and/or Company performance can be considered to determine the payment which can range from zero to 200% of Management Incentive Plan opportunity.

---



QuickLinks
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

BAC 6735-01

May 30, 2019

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, June 13, 2019

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from 

F Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open 

session: Secretary of Labor v. Solar Sources Mining, LLC, Docket 

No. LAKE 2017-99. (Issues include whether the Judge abused his 

discretion and failed to adequately explain the basis for the civil 

penalty he imposed.)

Any person attending this meeting who requires special 

accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 

interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those 

needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

PHONE NUMBER

FOR LISTENING TO 

MEETING: 1-(866) 867-4769

Passcode: 678-100

__________________________________

Sarah L. Stewart

Deputy General Counsel
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1657

To suspend temporarily the duty on 3-ethylamino-p-cresol.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 2, 1993

Mr. TAUZIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on 3-ethylamino-p-cresol.

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

3 SECTION 1. 3-ETHYLAMINO-P-CRESOL.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.31.12 3-Ethylamino-p-cresol (CAS

No. 120-37-6) (provided for

in subheading 2922.29.15) Free No change No change On or before

12/31/97 ’’.

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—

9 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by

10 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered,
2

•HR 1657 IH

1 or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on

2 or after the 15th day after the date of the enact3 ment of this Act.

4 (2) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION TO CERTAIN

5 ENTRIES.—Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tar6 iff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) or any other provi7 sion of law, upon proper request filed with the ap8 propriate customs officer before the 90th day after

9 the date of the enactment of this Act, any entry, or

10 withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, of any

11 goods described in heading 9902.31.12 of the Har12 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (as

13 added by subsection (a)) that was made—

14 (A) after December 31, 1992; and

15 (B) before the 15th day after the date of

16 the enactment of this Act;

17 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such

18 entry or withdrawal occurred on the 15th day after

19 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  Certification of Principal Executive Officer
                         Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350
      As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Carl Spana, President and Chief Executive Officer of Palatin Technologies,
Inc., hereby certify, to my knowledge, that the annual report on Form 10-K for
the period ending June 30, 2003 of Palatin Technologies, Inc. (the "Form 10-K")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Palatin Technologies, Inc.

Dated: September 29, 2003             /s/ Carl Spana
                                      --------------
                                      Carl Spana
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer
                                      (Principal Executive Officer)
**EXHIBIT23.1**

 

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-144985,333-72508, 333-95765, 333-37641, 033-93100, 033-85766 and 333-117407 of MicroComponent Technology, Inc. (the Company) on Form S-8 of our reportdated March 28, 2008, which expresses an unqualified opinion and includesan explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s ability to continue as agoing concern, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of MicroComponent Technology, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007.

 

/s/ Olsen,Thielen & Co. Ltd.

 

St. Paul, Minnesota

March 28, 2008

 

 

----
Exhibit 32.01



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 Annual Report of Environmental Power Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the Report), I, Kamlesh R. Tejwani, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 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 the Securities Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                         
|-------------------------
|                         
|/s/    KAMLESH R.
TEJWANI
|Kamlesh R. Tejwani       
|Chief Executive Officer  



March 29, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 29 (Monday, February 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 9830]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3433]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-223-000]


National Association of Gas Consumers, v. All Sellers of Natural 
Gas in the United States of America in Interstate Commerce; Notice of 
Filing

February 6, 2001.
    Take notice that on February 1, 2001, the National Association of 
Gas Consumers (NAGC) tendered for filing a complaint alleging that the 
markets for natural gas in the United States are not workably 
competitive and that the prices in those markets are unjust and 
unreasonable.
    NAGC alleges that the prices for natural gas do not reflect 
legitimate forces of supply and demand. NAGC asserts that the 
Commission's order issued on December 15, 2000 in San Diego Gas & 
Electric Co. v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services into the 
Markets Operated by the California, Independent System Operator and the 
California Exchange, 93 FERC para. 61,294, provides a basis for the 
Commission to issue an immediate order setting a benchmark price for 
natural gas in the United States at $2.74 as projected by the National 
Petroleum Council, and rule that any sales above the level be subject 
to complaints filed at the Commission for refunds of unjust and 
unreasonable rates for three years commencing January 1, 2001.
    In the alternative, NAGC requests that the level of the present 
high natural gas prices be set for investigation and hearing as unjust 
and unreasonable, and upon the conclusion thereof, orders that sellers 
refund excessive prices to consumers. NAGC requests that in light of 
the severe impact of current prices on consumers of natural gas in the 
United States, that the Commission act as quickly as possible.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or 
before March 1, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make Protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the 
Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm. Answers to the filing shall be 
due on or before March 1, 2001.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-3433 Filed 2-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6010 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EARL SYLVESTER TURNER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CR-99-119-RLW; CA-05-723-RLW)

Submitted: May 18, 2006 Decided: May 31, 2006

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Earl Sylvester Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Barton Campbell,

Sara Elizabeth Flannery, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Earl Sylvester Turner seeks to appeal the district

court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on

that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.

2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Turner has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Turner’s notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims
- 3 -

based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on

collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously

discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the

movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255

(2000). Turner’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.

Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255

motion. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### David Wayne WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF ADULT INSTITUTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-15953.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.*

Filed Dec. 22, 2010.

David Wayne Wilson, San Diego, CA, pro se.

*112Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner David Wayne Wilson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his constitutional and statutory claims stemming from his inability to watch educational programming on television while housed in administrative segregation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision to dismiss Wilson’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, *Ramirez v. Galaza,*334 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Wilson’s Eighth Amendment claim because the lack of educational television programs, standing alone, does not amount to deliberate indifference. *See Hoptowit v. Ray,*682 F.2d 1237, 1254 (9th Cir.1982) (“Idleness and the lack of programs are not Eighth Amendment violations.”), *abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner,*515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995).

The district court also properly dismissed Wilson’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”). Wilson failed to allege that he was denied access to educational programming because of a disability or that he was unable to access the programming because of the disparate impact of a facially neutral policy. *See Simmons v. Navajo County,*609 F.3d 1011, 1021 (9th Cir.2010) (ADA claim failed because pretrial detainee was not excluded from outdoor recreation because of disability); *O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr.,*502 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir.2007) (plaintiff must allege that he was denied access to programming solely because of a disability to state an RA claim).

Wilson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We deny Wilson’s motion under Fed. RApp. P. 15 as moot.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.