alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.39

                                MICROISLET, INC.
                                ----------------

                                  SUMMARY SHEET
                                       OF
                              DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

In addition to their monthly fee of $1,500, non-employee directors receive
reimbursement of expenses of attending directors' or committee meetings. Our
directors have received in the past, and may receive in the future, stock option
grants.



                                      -1-
---

---

EXHIBIT 13.1

# CERTIFICATION

(Certification of CEO of the
Registrant pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In
connection with the Annual Report of Scitex Corporation Ltd. (the Company) on
Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual Report), I, Raanan Cohen,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.       
          The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: June 30, 2004

| |  | BY: /S/ Raanan Cohen
Raanan CohenPresident and Chief Executive Officer
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
<PAGE>

                                 [LETTERHEAD]

(214) 922-4167

                                April 30, 1997

Securities and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20549
Attention: 1934 Act Filing Desk

       Re: Spinnaker Industries, Inc.
           Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10K

Gentlemen:

     On behalf of Spinnaker Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the 
"Company"), enclosed for filing under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as 
amended, is the Company's Amendment No. 1 to its Annual Report on Form 10-K; 
styled Form 10-K/A(1) (the "Amendment").  The Amendment is being filed 
pursuant to General Instruction G(3) to Form 10-K in order to furnish the 
Company's definitive proxy statement with respect to its 1997 Annual Meeting 
of Stockholders of the Company, which definitive proxy statement is 
incorporated by reference in Part III.  Please contact the undersigned at the 
above telephone number if you have any questions.

                                       Very truly yours,


                                       Timothy R. Vaughan

cc: NASD
TRV:kbm
Enclosure
#### BIOXY, INC. v. CRAFT

No. 368P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 634

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 October 1997.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 15, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136834 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136834 

 COA: 285166 

Clinton CC: 07-008187-FC 

MICHAEL WAYNE WELLMAN,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 16, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Clinton Circuit Court for 

correction of the presentence investigation report as agreed to by the trial court. The 

circuit court shall forward a copy of the amended report to the Department of 

Corrections, MCL 771.14(6) and MCR 6.425(E)(2). In all other respects, leave to appeal 

is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should 

be reviewed by this Court. 

l1008 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 15, 2008 

 Clerk
#### Ernest Parker et al., Respondents, v. David Fisher et al., Appellants.

— Orders entered on February 23, 1962 unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondents. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
**EXHIBIT
      32**




**Certifications**


**Pursuant
      to Section 906**


**Of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. Section 1350)**




The
      undersigned hereby certifies that based on their knowledge (i) the
      foregoing annual report on Form 10-K filed by Fountain Powerboat Industries,
      Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended June 30, 2006, fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of 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 Fountain Powerboat
      Industries, Inc. and will be retained by Fountain Powerboat Industries, Inc
      and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




Date:
                September 22, 2006
            /S/*Reginald
                M. Fountain, Jr.*
              
              Reginald
                M. Fountain, Jr.President
                and Chief Executive OfficerDate:
                September 22, 2006
            /S/*Irving
                L. Smith*Irving
                L. SmithChief
                Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 99.1

 

Structured Asset Trust Unit Repackagings (SATURNS) 

Series 2001-3 Trust 

To liquidate its assets and terminate

| CUSIP:  | 80409K203 |
|---------|-----------|
| Symbol: | MJE       |

**FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:**

January 30, 2007

NEW YORK, NEW YORK – Structured Asset Trust Unit Repackagings (SATURNS), BellSouth Debenture Backed Series 2001-3 Trust (the “Trust”) (New York Stock Exchange Ticker Symbol “MJD”), announced today that a “Trust Wind Up Event” has occurred under the terms of the Trust Agreement governing the Trust and that the Trust will liquidate its assets and terminate. Settlement of a sale of the securities held by the Trust is expected to occur and a liquidation distribution is expected to be made with respect to the Units of the Trust on or about February 7, 2007. 

The Trust Wind Up Event and requirement for termination of the Trust arose after BellSouth Corporation (successor by merger to BellSouth Capital Funding Corporation) withdrew from listing on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) the securities held by the Trust, which had previously given rise to reporting obligations for BellSouth Corporation under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). BellSouth Corporation subsequently terminated its reporting obligations under the Exchange Act. As a result, the Depositor of the Trust would be unable to meet its Exchange Act reporting obligations in relation to the Trust, which circumstance constitutes a Trust Wind Up Event.

Contact:

    LaSalle Bank National Association                                  Andy Streepey, ABS Trust Services, 312-904-9387

 

 

|   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Gerardo Pantusco, Appellant, against Robert E. Murphy, as Warden of Auburn Prison, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. (Appeal from order of Cayuga Special Term dismissing the writ of habeas corpus and remanding relator to the custody of the Warden.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
#### § 770.18 Entry restrictions.

Except for military personnel and civilian employees of the United States in the performance of their official duties, entry upon Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, or remaining thereon by any person whatsoever for any purpose without the advance consent of the Commanding Officer, SUBASE Bangor or his authorized representative is prohibited. *See,* 18 U.S.C. 1382; the Internal Security Act of 1950, Section 21 (50 U.S.C. 797); Department of Defense Directive 5200.8 of 25 April 1991; Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5511.36A of 21 July 1992.

[44 FR 32368, June 6, 1979, as amended at 65 FR 53592, Sept. 5, 2000]
§ 61.11 Responsibilities. ( a ) Under the authority, direction, and control of the USD(P&R) through the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness and Force Management, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy (DASD(MC&FP)): ( 1 ) Monitors compliance with this subpart.
( 2 ) Collaborates with the Secretaries of the Military Departments to develop policies and procedures for monitoring compliance with the PSs in § 61.12 of this subpart.
( 3 ) Convenes an annual DoD Accreditation and Inspection Summit to review and respond to the findings and recommendations of the Military Departments' accreditation or inspection results.
( b ) The Secretaries of the Military Departments: ( 1 ) Develop Service-wide FAP policy, supplementary standards, and instructions to provide for unique requirements within their respective installation FAPs to implement the PSs in this subpart as appropriate.
( 2 ) Require all installation personnel with responsibilities in this subpart receive appropriate training to implement the PSs in § 61.12 of this subpart.
( 3 ) Conduct accreditation and inspection reviews outlined in § 61.12 of this subpart.
Interim Financial Data (Unaudited)
(in thousands of dollars, except per share data)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                               Quarter Ended
                                                                          --------------------------------------------------
                                                                          June 30,  September 30,  December 31,  March 31,
                                                                          --------  -------------  ------------  ---------

Fiscal 2001
<S>                                                                         <C>          <C>          <C>            <C>
         Sales......................................                        $6,465       6,431        7,413          6,588
         Gross Profit.............................                             781         425          701            473
         Net Loss.................................                            (333)     (1,076)        (429)        (1,302)
         Net Loss Per Common Share
             Basic and Diluted...................                             (.02)       (.06)        (.02)          (.08)
         EBITDA.................................                               318        (378)         299           (565)
         EBITDA Per Common Share........                                       .02        (.02)         .02           (.03)

Fiscal 2000
         Sales......................................                        $5,764       5,334        3,668          5,832
         Gross Profit.............................                             895         841          379          1,049
         Net Earnings (Loss)....................                              (346)     (5,196)        (944)            14
         Net Earnings (Loss) Per
             Common Share Basic
             and Diluted..........................                            (.02)       (.31)        (.06)             -
         EBITDA.................................                               298      (4,545)        (281)           660
         EBITDA Per Common Share........                                       .02        (.27)        (.02)           .04

</TABLE>
#### EUSTIS v. STEINSON.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. New Trial—Altercation between Parties—Destruction op Papers.

On reopening court after a recess, defendant stated that, while examining his papers, plaintiff had seized them, torn them up, and called defendant a thief. Plaintiff stated that he had found exhibits he wanted among defendant’s papers, and taken them. Defendant interposed that plaintiff was then handling his papers, and asked that he be prevented from doing so. Defendant refused to proceed, and the court directed a verdict for plaintiff. *Held,*that a motion for a new trial by defendant on the ground that he had not been protected in his rights was untenable.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.

Action by John E. Eustis against George Steinson. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.

George Steinson, in pro. per.

Eustis & Foster, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The action was brought on a written contract for legal services. The plaintiff claims he performed his part and earned his compensation. This claim is disputed by defendant. Each party conducted his own case at the trial. After considerable testimony had been taken, the court took a recess. Upon the reopening the following scene took place:

Defendant: I move to punish the plaintiff for contempt of court. While I was examining my papers, to hand to you what I thought was proper for you to have, he grabbed the papers, and tore them, and called me a thief, and threatened to hit me. The Court: That was not in the presence of the court. Plaintiff: I asked for the exhibits, and found among his papers the papers I wanted, and took hold of them, and he grabbed them up and tore them. The Court: That is a question of fact between you gentlemen, of an act committed while the court was in recess, and I cannot take cognizance of it. Defendant: He is handling my papers again, and I ask the court not to allow him to do so. Unless I have the protection of this court, I won’t proceed further. The Court: Are you ready to proceed? Defendant: I will proceed *156no further. The Court: The jury are instructed to find for plaintiff for the sum of $200, with interest from February 1, 1901, making a total of $225. (The jury found accordingly.) Defendant: I move for a new trial on the ground-that the defendant has not been protected in his rights before the court, and on the ground that the evidence has been so mixed up that it is-impossible for him to proceed, and on the ground that the court has refused its protection to him in the presentation of his case. (Motion denied. Exception taken.)

The defendant took no exception to the failure of the court to submit the issues to the jury, and made no motion in respect thereto. He relied upon his exception to the-refusal of the court to grant a new trial. Defendant’s motion for a new trial was based solely upon untenable grounds.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 99.3

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 Amended Annual Report of ROHN Industries, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the twelve months ended
December 31, 2001, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alan R. Dix, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.    The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



---



QuickLinks
§ 516.9 Service of criminal process within the United States. ( a ) *Surrender of personnel.* Guidance for surrender of military personnel to civilian law enforcement officials is in Chapter 7 of AR 630-10 and AR l90-9. Army officials will cooperate with civilian law enforcement authorities who seek the surrender of a soldier in connection with criminal charges. Special rules apply when a bail bondsman or other surety seeks custody of a soldier.
( b ) *Requests for witnesses or evidence in criminal proceedings.* See subpart G to this part.
[59 FR 38236, July 27, 1994; 59 FR 45975, Sept. 6, 1994]
----- Forwarded by Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/18/2011 03:12 PM

-----

From: Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Jim Eddinger/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 02/01/2011 02:40 PM

Subject: Fw: Boiler benefits briefing materials

Cortney,

Attached are two documents that should help with tomorrow morning's

discussion on the RIA. The first document is a simple explanation of

how we calculated the benefits for these rules. The second document,

which you requested, is the revised TSD that includes more information

on emissions.

Thanks!

Brian

(See attached file: How Benefits were calculated for Boiler MACT and

Boiler Area Source Rule.pdf)(See attached file: EPA-454_R-10-006.pdf)
### SUBCHAPTER I—DECLARATION OF CONDITIONS AND POLICY
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roy Pena, Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 421]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.), rendered on or about November 16, 2004, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 

as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 

In connection with thequarterly report of Educational Development Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending August 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  | October 15, 2009 |                                          | By | /s/ Randall W. White             |
|--------|-----------------------|-----------------------------------------------|----|----------------------------------|
|   |                  | Randall W. White                              |
|   |                  | President and Chief  Executive Officer        |
|   |                  |                                          |
|   |                  |                                          |
| Date:  | October 15, 2009 |                                          | By | /s/ Marilyn R.  (Welborn) Pinney |
|   |                  | Controller and  Corporate Secretary           |
|   |                  | (Principal Financial  and Accounting Officer) |

 

1

----
Exhibit
35.1



CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLIANCE



The undersigned hereby certifies that she
is the duly elected and acting Assistant Treasurer-Corporate Finance and Cash Management of Public Service Company of New Hampshire,
as servicer (the “Servicer”) under the Servicing Agreement, dated as of May 8, 2018, (the “Servicing
Agreement”), between the Servicer and PSNH Funding LLC 3 (the “Issuer”), and further certifies on
behalf of the Servicer that:



1.       In
my capacity as Assistant Treasurer-Corporate Finance and Cash Management of the Servicer, I am responsible for assessing the Servicer’s
compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to the Servicer set forth in the Servicing Agreement and Item 1122(d) of Regulation
AB;



2.       A
review of the activities of the Servicer and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement for the twelve months ended December
31, 2019 has been made under the supervision of the undersigned pursuant to Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB and Section 3.03 of the
Servicing Agreement; and



3.       To
the undersigned’s knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its material obligations in all material
respects under the Servicing Agreement throughout the twelve months ended December 31, 2019 except as listed on Annex A
hereto.



4.       Deloitte
& Touche LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on its assessment of compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria as of December 31, 2019, and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2019.



Executed as of this 27th day
of March 2020.





| | By: | /s/ Emilie G. O’Neil                                              
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     | Name: Emilie G. O’Neil                                            
| |     | Title: Assistant Treasurer- Corporate
 Finance and Cash Management













ANNEX A



LIST OF SERVICER DEFAULTS



|Nature of Default |  |  |  | Status
|----------------- |  |  |  | ------
|None.             |  |  |  |       
|                  |  |  |  |
#### MAGNOLIA METAL CO., Respondent, v. DREW et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 23, 1903.)

Action by the Magnolia Metal Company against Edward E. Drew and others.

J. D. Fessenden, for appellants.

A. S. Bacon, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, and appeal from order denying motion for new trial dismissed.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-06-00190- CR Je ffre y Edwin P r e witt , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 403RD JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 30115 12, H ONO RAB LE FRANKW. B RY AN, JR., JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E MO R

A N D UM O P I N I O N J eff rey Edwin Prewitt seeks to appea l f rom a judgme nt of conviction for mur der. The trial court ha s cer

tified that this is a plea barg ain case and Prewitt has no right of appe al. SeeT e x. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2) . The a ppeal is dismissed. Se eid . rule 25.2(d) .

__________________________________________ G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P uryear and Waldrop Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Apr il 7, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh