alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 of WOM, Inc. (the "Company")on Form
10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Frederic M. Zinn the
principal executive officer and principal financial officer, certifies pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: November 12, 2004


           /s/ Frederic M. Zinn
               ----------------
               Frederic M. Zinn
               President
               Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 129972 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 129972 COA: 253805 Genesee CC: 96-053792-FH TIMOTHY JAMES VEASLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the October 4, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0322 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 29, 2006

Clerk
§ 36.203 Integrated settings. ( a ) *General.* A public accommodation shall afford goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations to an individual with a disability in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individual.
( b ) *Opportunity to participate.* Notwithstanding the existence of separate or different programs or activities provided in accordance with this subpart, a public accommodation shall not deny an individual with a disability an opportunity to participate in such programs or activities that are not separate or different.
( c ) *Accommodations and services.* ( 1 ) Nothing in this part shall be construed to require an individual with a disability to accept an accommodation, aid, service, opportunity, or benefit available under this part that such individual chooses not to accept.
( 2 ) Nothing in the Act or this part authorizes the representative or guardian of an individual with a disability to decline food, water, medical treatment, or medical services for that individual.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21

- 0500 CITY OF WHITEFISH,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOSHUA ZUMWALT,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT** Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until January 10, 2022, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court December 8 2021

12/08/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0500
### SUBCHAPTER XVII—BIG BEND NATIONAL PARK
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 201 3

- NM

- 196

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
§ 513.40 Inmate access to Inmate Central File. Inmates are encouraged to use the simple access procedures described in this section to review disclosable records maintained in his or her Inmate Central File, rather than the FOIA procedures described in §§ 513.60 through 513.68 of this subpart. Disclosable records in the Inmate Central File include, but are not limited to, documents relating to the inmate's sentence, detainer, participation in Bureau programs such as the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, classification data, parole information, mail, visits, property, conduct, work, release processing, and general correspondence. This information is available without filing a FOIA request. If any information is withheld from the inmate, staff will provide the inmate with a general description of that information and also will notify the inmate that he or she may file a FOIA request. ( a ) *Inmate review of his or her Inmate Central File.* An inmate may at any time request to review all disclosable portions of his or her Inmate Central File by submitting a request to a staff member designated by the Warden. Staff are to acknowledge the request and schedule the inmate, as promptly as is practical, for a review of the file at a time which will not disrupt institution operations.
( b ) *Procedures for inmate review of his or her Inmate Central File.* ( 1 ) Prior to the inmate's review of the file, staff are to remove the Privacy Folder which contains documents withheld from disclosure pursuant to § 513.32.
( 2 ) During the file review, the inmate is to be under direct and constant supervision by staff. The staff member monitoring the review shall enter the date of the inmate's file review on the Inmate Activity Record and initial the entry. Staff shall ask the inmate to initial the entry also, and if the inmate refuses to do so, shall enter a notation to that effect.
( 3 ) Staff shall advise the inmate if there are documents withheld from disclosure and, if so, shall advise the inmate of the inmate's right under the provisions of § 513.61 to make a FOIA request for the withheld documents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS OF DEERBROOK  PUBLISHING GROUP, INC. FOR THE
QUARTER  ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS.  THIS  EXHIBIT  SHALL NOT BE  DEEMED  FILED FOR THE
PURPOSE  OF  SECTION  11 OF THE  SECURITIES  ACT OF 1933 AND  SECTION  18 OF THE
SECURITIES  EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, OR OTHERWISE  SUBJECT TO THE LIABILITY OF SUCH
SECTIONS,  NOR SHALL IT BE DEEMED A PART OF ANY OTHER FILING WHICH  INCORPORATES
THIS REPORT BY REFERENCE,  UNLESS SUCH OTHER FILING EXPRESSLY  INCORPORATES THIS
EXHIBIT BY REFERENCE.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          75,565
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    149,239
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               319,210
<PP&E>                                         125,216
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,495
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 607,987
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,024,025
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,690
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,429,137
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   607,987
<SALES>                                          1,123
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,123
<CGS>                                            4,899
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,848,198
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,847,075)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,847,075)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (374,977)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,222,052)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)


</TABLE>
#### Alexander *v.*Barrett *et al.*

June 24, 1910.

Trover. Before Judge Pendleton. Eulton superior court.

January 4, 1909.

*R. L. Rodgers,*for plaintiff. *Virgil Jones,*for defendants.

Beck, J.

1. The fact that service of the motion for a new trial and the rule nisi upon the opposite party was made not by an officer but by the movant is not a vaiid ground for dismissal of the motion.

2. Retention by the trial judge of a motion for a new trial for more than ninety days after the hearing before passing upon the same will not work a dismissal of the motion.

3. Where an application for a new trial was made, and an order was duly passed in which it was provided that “Movant is allowed until the hearing of the motion, whenever that shall be, to amend and perfect the motion and to prepare for approval and file a brief of the evidence in said case,” and where at the time of the hearing the movant submitted a brief of the evidence, it was within the power of the judge to approve the brief; and he having done so, it was not error to refuse to dismiss the motion for a new trial on the ground that no approved brief of evidence had been filed, *Malsby*v. *Young,*104 *Ga.*205 (30 S. E. 854).

4. Where the judge, having before him the brief of evidence as submitted on the hearing of the motion for a new trial, approved the same as cor rect and granted the new trial,'but failed to enter the order approving the brief of evidence, it was competent for him subsequently, and before the bill of exceptions was sued out, to pass an order reciting that the brief of evidence “was approved January 4, 1909,” that being the date upon which the motion for new trial was passed, upon, and that “this order is made now for then.” Such nunc pro tunc order had the effect of an approval duly entered before passing upon the motion for a new trial.

5. The evidence not requiring the, verdict as rendered, the first grant of a new trial will not be disturbed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
### §§3838 to 3838c. Repealed. Pub. L. 115–334, title II, §2301(c)(1), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4551

Section 3838, Pub. L. 99–198, title XII, §1238, as added Pub. L. 107–171, title II, §2001(a), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 223, defined terms for this subpart.

A prior section 3838, Pub. L. 99–198, title XII, §1238, as added Pub. L. 101–624, title XIV, §1439, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3590, related to policy of Congress on water quality protection, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 104–127, title III, §336(h), Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1007.

Section 3838a, Pub. L. 99–198, title XII, §1238A, as added Pub. L. 107–171, title II, §2001(a), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 225; amended Pub. L. 109–171, title I, §1202(a), Feb. 8, 2006, 120 Stat. 5; Pub. L. 110–234, title II, §2301(b), (c), May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1047, 1048; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title II, §2301(b), (c), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1775, 1776, established a conservation security program to assist producers of agricultural operations in promoting conservation purposes.

A prior section 3838a, Pub. L. 99–198, title XII, §1238A, as added Pub. L. 101–624, title XIV, §1439, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3590, defined terms for purposes of this part, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 104–127, title III, §336(h), Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1007.

Section 3838b, Pub. L. 99–198, title XII, §1238B, as added Pub. L. 107–171, title II, §2001(a), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 230, set forth duties of producers under conservation security contracts.

A prior section 3838b, Pub. L. 99–198, title XII, §1238B, as added Pub. L. 101–624, title XIV, §1439, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3590, directed Secretary to formulate and carry out agricultural water quality protection program, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 104–127, title III, §336(h), Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1007.

Section 3838c, Pub. L. 99–198, title XII, §1238C, as added Pub. L. 107–171, title II, §2001(a), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 230, set forth duties of Secretary of Agriculture relating to timing and amounts of payments, promulgation of regulations, changes of interest in land, enrollment procedure, and providing technical assistance.

A prior section 3838c, Pub. L. 99–198, title XII, §1238C, as added Pub. L. 101–624, title XIV, §1439, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3594, related to lands eligible for enrollment in water quality protection program, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 104–127, title III, §336(h), Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1007.
(No. 80-CC-1266

#### R. H. Bishop & Co., Claimant, *v.*The State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed March 1, 1982.*

Busch, Harrington & Porter (Kip R. Pope, of counsel), for Claimant.

Tyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General (Sue M. Mueller and William E. Webber, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel), for Respondent.

Roe, C. J.

This, claim arises from certain work performed by the Claimant, R. H. Bishop and Company, in the building of the centralized computer facility being a State project through the Capital Development Board.

The Claimant submitted a bid on the heating portion of the premises, and also on the ventilation and air conditioning portion of the contract. The Claimant was awarded the ventilation and air conditioning contract, but was not a successful bidder on the heating contract.

During the course of construction, a dispute arose over installation of certain exhaust stacks from the emergency generators located in the building. It is the Claimant’s contention that the insulation of these stacks was the responsibility of the heating contractor rather than under his specifications on the ventilation and air conditioning contract.

It is the State’s position, and that of the Capital *297Development Board, that Claimant was to furnish this insulation which was done, and for which Claimant claims an additional $14,026.00. Mr. Charles L. Amancher testified that he was a mechanical engineer and prepared Claimant’s bids, and had been active in doing that type of work for over 20 years.

It is our opinion, after lengthy testimony, that the issue centers on an interpretation of the specifications contained in those furnished to Claimant under section 1.2 and subsections B and C. It may be seen under subsections B and C that the contractor has an option, which was acknowledged in the testimony. The contractor may either have these stacks made by an independent factory or may fabricate them itself under par. C. The only specific reference to insulation is in par. C-l, which gives the specifications as to how they are to be constructed “before application of insulation.” We note, however, in section B, subsection 3 that “Overall heat transfer coefficient shall be not greater than 0.35 BTU per hour/sq.ft./degree F. at 1000 degrees F. gas temperature.”

It is our opinion that the reasonable interpretation of these two sections is that the person responsible for the ventilation and air conditioning installation is to provide these stacks with insulation. The plain meaning of section B-3 to an engineer would be that insulation is required to conform to that specification of heat transfer coefficient.

It is further shown that the Claimant did have an item for insulation contained in his bid for approximately $2,000.00, and Claimant submitted no evidence to show whether this item was included in the heating contractor’s bid. Moreover, because this Court does not have equitable jurisdiction, an action for *quantum meruit*cannot succeed.

*298It is our opinion, therefore, that the specifications were sufficiently clear and that the contractor should be bound by his original bid. Accordingly, the claim is denied.
Exhibit 10(o)

THE GILLETTE COMPANY FINANCIAL PLANNINGREIMBURSEMENT PROGRAMREVISED OCTOBER 2004

Eligibility
    
    Each executive of the Company who (i) is generally treated as a United States employee for employment and benefit purposes, (ii) is not eligible for the Companys Senior Executive Financial Planning Program, and (iii) is either a grade level 25 or above, or holds any of the following By-Law officer positions in The Gillette Company:  Vice President, Internal Auditor, Patent and Trademark Counsel, or Secretary.Program Benefit
    
    Reimbursement by Company of financial counseling, estate planning, tax preparation, retirement and other related financial planning services for the participant and his/her spouse, domestic partner or dependent children.Available Providers
    
    Any qualified tax, financial, legal or similar firm selected by participant.Excluded Services
    
    Brokerage or other investment transaction fees; asset management fees; insurance premiums; services for individuals other than participant, his/her spouse or domestic partner and dependent children.Maximum Benefit
    
    During employment: $5,000 of reimbursements received in any calendar year.Following retirement under a Company-sponsored retirement plan:  $3,000 of reimbursements received in any calendar year, over the participants life.Tax Effects
    
    Program benefits received by participant will be includable in compensation.  The participant is responsible for applicable Federal and State income taxes and FICA taxes.Termination of Participation
    
    Last day of calendar year in which participant ceases to be an eligible executive, unless participant qualifies for retirement benefits under this program.Program Amendment and Termination
    
    At discretion of the Company, by action of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, without requirement of advance notice.Effective Date
    
    January 1, 1999 (for eligible executives on or after such date).
**EXHIBIT32.1****SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**     In connection with the Quarterly Report of United Surgical Partners International, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, William H. Wilcox,President and Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:  (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 material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/William H. Wilcox   William H. Wilcox
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE GILLETTE COMPANY FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000041499
<NAME> THE GILLETTE COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         105,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,596,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    74,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,500,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,690,000
<PP&E>                                       5,191,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,087,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,864,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,641,000
<BONDS>                                      1,476,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     93,000
<COMMON>                                       676,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,072,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,864,000
<SALES>                                     10,062,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,062,000
<CGS>                                        3,831,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,831,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,907,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              78,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,221,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   794,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,427,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,427,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.49
        

</TABLE>
| Delaware                                                          |                                             | 000-23143               |       | 13-3379479                       |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|------------|----------------------------------|
| (State or other jurisdictionof incorporation)                     |                                             | (CommissionFile Number) |       | (IRS EmployerIdentification No.) |
|                                                              |                                             |                    |       |                             |
|                                                              | 777 Old Saw Mill River Road, Tarrytown, New York |                    | 10591      |
|                                                              | (Address of principal executive offices)         |                    | (Zip Code) |
| Registrant's telephone number, including area code (914) 789-2800 |

----

| Item 5.02. | Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers. |
|------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (b)   | On December 15, 2015, Angelo Lovallo, the Company's Principal Accounting Officer, notified the Company of his resignation, to be effective as of December 29, 2015. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

|   | PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. |
|--------|---------------------------------|
|   | By:                             | /s/ PATRICK FABBIO |
|   |                            | Patrick Fabbio |
|   |                            | Chief Financial Officer |
|   |                            |   |