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 Annual Report of Thunder Mountain Gold Inc, (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, E. James Collord, President, Director 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 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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/ E. James Collord

By  __________________________________

E.  James Collord

President, Director and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  March 30, 2010
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEYGENERAL**  **OF TEXAS**  **AUSTIN OUILD**  **c. MANN**  **AlTO ”“**  **=.** **0.*.** **“ aL**  

## xamrab1eQruyl!abe68,tllwrma Oam#?8tiaaa4Roelautiar(3eodttw fbrue at Repm8atstlvas 

## Irues& Tam8 Derr sir1



## In your letter aiApLTl7,



## valar85%

eueb eollec Q L W p u r p me a f or l t he 

### rMt t & t t h 8 t & t t & ep e r l o da t o m 8 o tl .m

18t a km b 8 a -ta d 80-

P o u r a

ve r yt m ll g A flTo EII cpM

- O F 7 3 x A.s
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1998
<CASH>                                             989
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   70,494
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,216
<INVENTORY>                                     90,516
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               179,713
<PP&E>                                         475,211
<DEPRECIATION>                                 295,914
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 390,043
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           79,395
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,403
<OTHER-SE>                                     220,334
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   390,043
<SALES>                                        114,182
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               114,182
<CGS>                                           86,153
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  104,692
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   650
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    46
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 236
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,558
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,396
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,162
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,162
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37
        

</TABLE>
THE COVANCE INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN
                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1

      Covance Inc.  hereby amends the Covance Inc.  Employee  Stock
Purchase Plan (the "Plan") as follows:

      Section 4.3 shall be amended to increase the number of shares that may be
offered under the Plan from 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 shares by deleting Section
4.3 in its entirety and replacing it with the following:

           4.3 MAXIMUM OFFERING: The maximum number of shares of Stock which
      shall be issued under the Plan, subject to adjustment upon changes in
      capitalization of the Company as provided in Section 9.3, shall be
      3,000,000 shares. If the total number of shares which would be purchased
      during any Offering Period exceeds the maximum number of available shares,
      the Committee shall make a pro rata allocation of the available shares in
      a manner that it determines to be equitable and the balance of payroll
      deductions credited to the Accounts of Participants shall be returned to
      such Participants as soon as administratively practicable.

      To record the adoption of this Amendment No. 1 to the Plan, Covance Inc.
has authorized its officers to affix its name this 15th day of March, 2000.



COVANCE INC.



_____________________________________
By:  Jeffrey S. Hurwitz
     Corporate Senior Vice President,
     General Counsel and Secretary
First Amendment to First Amended and Restated Employment Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.9 
 FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, made as of the 1st day of January 2005, by and between
COMMONWEALTH BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Virginia corporation (the “Employer”), and THOMAS R. REYNOLDS (the “Executive”). 
 WHEREAS, the Employer and the Executive previously entered into a First Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2005 (the “Initial Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Initial Agreement contained an equation to determine certain performance-based cash, restricted stock and incentive option bonuses;
and 
 WHEREAS, the Employer and the Executive wish to amend the Initial Agreement to correct a mathematical error contained therein.

 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged by the parties hereto,
the Employer and the Executive hereby amend the Initial Agreement as follows: 
 1. The equation contained in Section 4(c) is hereby
removed in its entirety and replaced with the following: 
 “A + (A * (1-B)) = C” 
 2. The equation contained in Section 4(e)(i) is hereby removed in its entirety and replaced with the following: 
 “2,500 + (2,500 * (1 – A)) = B” 
 3. The equation contained in Section 4(e)(ii) is hereby removed in its entirety and replaced with the following: 
 “2,500
+ (2,500 * (1 – A)) = B” 
 4. All other portions of the Initial Agreement remain in effect. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed as a sealed instrument by the Employer, by
its duly authorized officer, and by the Executive, as of the date first above written. 
  

			
	 COMMONWEALTH BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	/s/ Robert B. Harris, Ph.D.
	 Name:
	 	Robert B. Harris, Ph.D.
	 Title:
	 	Chief Executive Officer
		
	 Date:
	 	2/1/06
		
		 	/s/ Thomas R. Reynolds
		 	Thomas R. Reynolds
		
	 Address:
	 	601 Biotech Drive             
		 	Richmond, Virginia 23235
		
	 Date:
	 	2/1/06
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11

- 1579

I n re: DONNIE WAYNE SHEFFIELD ,

Petitioner.

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus

( 4:07

- cr - 00769

- TLW

- 1 )

Submitted : August 18, 2011 Decided: August 22, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Donnie Wayne Sheffield , Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2

PER CURIAM:

Donnie Sheffield peti tions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order compelling the district court to act on several

motions he has filed in that court. We conclude that Sheffield

is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only i n extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States

Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v.

Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further,
mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a
clear right to the relief s ought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Ass'n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).

Sheffield has filed motions to appoint counsel and
compel production of transcripts, but currently has no cases
pending before the district court. Thus, he is not entitled to

the relief he seeks.

Accordingly, although we grant Sheffield leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his motion to expedite and
deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade quately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### 22.1002 Statutory and Executive order requirements.
No. 8228.

#### Jones *v.*Jones et al.

(Decided October 13, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Butler county.

*Mr. E. W. Kittredge; Messrs. Andrews & Morey*andi *Messrs. Bhotts & Millikin,*for plaintiff in error.

*541*Mr. Alex. F. Hume,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Davis, Shauck and Price, JJ., < concur.
**EXHIBIT
      32**









CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.


SECTION
      1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





This
      certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purposes of
      satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002 and may not be relied upon or used for any other purposes.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Access Pharmaceuticals,
      Inc. and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon its request.





Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Act of
      2002
      (18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted, the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”), Stephen R. Seiler,
      President and Chief Executive Officer of Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
      "Company"), and Stephen B. Thompson, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
      of the Company, each hereby certifies that to his knowledge the Annual Report
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 of the Company filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") 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 Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company for the period specified.





Signed
      at
      the City of Dallas, in the State of Texas, this 2nd day of April,
      2007.







/s/ Stephen
              R. Seiler
            
            /s/ Stephen
              B. ThompsonStephen R. Seiler
            Stephen B. ThompsonPresident and Chief Executive Officer
            Chief Financial
              Officer
Exhibit32.1

| Dated:      March 16, 2010                                                                |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                                                      |   |   |   |
|                                                                                      |   |   |   |
| /s/      Li Fu                                                                            |   |   |   |
| Li      FuCo-Chief      Executive Officer (principal      executive officer)              |   |   |   |
|                                                                                      |   |   |   |
|                                                                                      |   |   |   |
| /s/      Joseph J. Longever                                                               |   |   |   |
| Joseph      J. LongeverCo-Chief      Executive Officer (principal      executive officer) |   |   |   |

|                                                                                                                |   |   |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/      Wenbing Christopher Wang                                                                                   |   |   |   |
| Wenbing      Christopher WangPresident      and Interim Chief Financial Officer (principal      accounting officer) |   |   |   |

----
Publications

Table 5. Recovery percentages of tagged subyearling chinook salmon at Jones Beach, Tanner Creek release vs. midstream Columbia River release, 1989, 1990, and 1991. 

a Fish transported by truck and barged to the middle of the Columbia River adjacent to the confluence with Tanner Creek.b Normal hatchery release site.c The percent benefit for midstream Columbia River release (MC) over Tanner Creek release (TC) is calculated as [(MC% recovery - TC% recovery)  ̧ TC% recovery] x 100.d * = significant difference in recovery percentages for fish released in midstream Columbia River compared to fish released in Tanner Creek (P £ 0.05).

Use your browser's BACK button to return to the text.

Table of Contents
#### 1901.404 Class deviations.

Class deviations affecting more than one contracting action shall be authorized only by the Board Procurement Executive, unless FAR 1.405(e) is applicable, and shall be subject to the limitations set forth in FAR 1.404. Requests shall include the same information as cited in 1901.403.
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT (10)(b)

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 16 to Registration
Statement No. 33-43773 of Merrill Lynch Life Variable Annuity Separate Account A
on Form N-4 of our reports on (i) Merrill Lynch Life Insurance Company dated
February 28, 2000, and (ii) Merrill Lynch Life Variable Annuity Separate Account
A dated February 14, 2000, appearing in the Statement of Additional Information,
which is a part of such Registration Statement, and to the reference to us under
the heading "Experts" in the Prospectus, which is a part of such Registration
Statement.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
New York, New York


April 24, 2000
#### 18.104 Unusual and compelling urgency.

Agencies may limit the number of sources and full and open competition need not be provided for contracting actions involving urgent requirements. (See 6.302-2.)
1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause No. DA - 23 - 0643 SEBASTIAN ALEXANDER KEITEL, Respondent and Appellant, v. AVANLEE CHRISTINE OKRAGLY, Petitioner and Appellee. **ORDER GRANTING APPELLANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR**  **EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLATE REPLY**  **BRIEF** The Respondent/Appellant ’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellate Reply Brief having been reviewed, and good cause appearing. **IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:** Respondent/Appellant ’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellate Reply Brief is **GRANTED.** Respondent/Appellant ’s reply brief shall be filed by Monday, April 22, 2024. No further extensions will be granted.

Cc: Caitlin Pabst, Joseph Raffi ani Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 9 2024

04/09/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0643
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ALEXIAN BROTHERS MEDICAL )

CENTER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 12 C 3517

)

UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL )

WORKER UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS )

MIDWEST HEALTH BENEFITS FUND, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

In its response to this Court's June 22 memorandum order ("Order"), defendant (referred

to in the Order and referred to here as "Health Benefits Fund" for convenience) has filed an

Amended Answer to the Complaint brought against it by Alexian Brothers Medical Center. For

the most part that new responsive pleading no longer manifests an approach to pleading that

serves the goal represented by Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 8: that of dealing in plain language with

the concept of notice pleading incumbent on defendants as well as plaintiffs. But there are a few

aspects of the Amended Answer that appear to muddy the waters needlessly.

Thus Amended Answer ¶ 3 asserts a Rule 8(b)(5) disclaimer, when any lawyer should

know how to ascertain in about 15 minutes or less whether a given Illinois corporation is a

business corporation or one that is not-for-profit. Saying then that one has "insufficient

information to form a belief" in that respect is really the equivalent of putting on blinders.

Case: 1:12-cv-03517 Document #: 16 Filed: 07/02/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:42
Next, another Rule 8(b)(5) disclaimer is set out in Amended Answer ¶ 6. Yet the rest of

the Amended Answer, which is chock-full of confirmations that Health Benefits Fund must be

well aware of the identity of the Fund Participant who has an identification number ending as

6680, would appear to render the disclaimer inappropriate.

Finally, Amended Answer ¶ 8 also advances the same disclaimer on the ground that the

corresponding paragraph of the Complaint "fails to identify 'the following hospital services from

ALEXIAN.'" That assertion obviously misreads the Complaint's reference to "the following

hospital services" as speaking of the nature of the services rendered, rather than meaning

"hospital services in the following amounts." And when read in the latter sense, Amended

Answer ¶ 13 really confirms Health Benefits Fund's actual knowledge, thus rendering the

disclaimer less than candid.

Health Benefits Fund's counsel must therefore return to the drawing board once again. 

Counsel is ordered to file an appropriate amendment to the Amended Answer (and not a fully

self-contained Second Amended Answer) addressing the matters identified here on or before

July 16, 2012.

_________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: July 2, 2012.

- 2 -

Case: 1:12-cv-03517 Document #: 16 Filed: 07/02/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:43
#### 18.116 Service-disabled Veteran-owned Small Business (SDVOSB) sole source awards.

Contracts may be awarded to Service-disabled Veteran-owned Small Business (SDVOSB) concerns eligible under the SDVOSB Program on a sole source basis. (See 19.1406.)

[71 FR 38248, July 5, 2006. Redesignated at 72 FR 46344, Aug. 17, 2007; 89 FR 13956, Feb. 24, 2024]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Oliver Hunter, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County, dated December 9, 1963, which denied without a hearing his application to vacate a judgment of said court rendered April 23, 1958 after a jury trial, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, and imposing sentence. The judgment of conviction was previously affirmed by this court (10 A D 2d 1007, mot. tor lv. to app. to Court of Appeals den. Sept. 10, 1960, cert. den. 365 U. S. 849). Order affirmed. No opinion. [For affirmance of order denying prior *coram nobis*application, see 16 A D 2d 960.] Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur; Hill, J., not voting.
# OTS Trust and Asset Management Handbook

Share This Page:

Glossary >

The reason each document is rescinded is noted as one of the following:

1 Outdated – The document is no longer needed. Any attachments to the document are rescinded only as they relate to national banks and federal savings associations.

2 Duplicative – The document transmitted interagency guidance that was issued jointly with the OCC. The rescission applies to the transmitting document only and not the attached interagency guidance. Thrifts are directed to use the OCC-issued document.

3 Conveyance – The document is a cover letter that merely conveyed another document. The rescission does not change the applicability of the conveyed document. To determine the applicability of the conveyed document, please refer to the original issuer of the document.

4 Replaced – The document and any attachments are superseded by OCC guidance.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 932 

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide that any estimate 

prepared by the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee 

on Taxation shall include costs relating to servicing the public debt, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 25, 2017 

Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. PERDUE, Mr. PAUL, and Mr. 

LEE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide 

that any estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget 

Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation shall include 

costs relating to servicing the public debt, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Budgetary Accuracy 

5 in Scoring Interest Costs Act of 2017’’ or the ‘‘BASIC 

6 Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 932 IS

1 SEC. 2. CBO AND JCT ESTIMATES TO INCLUDE DEBT SERV2 ICING COSTS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Congressional Budget and 

4 Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) 

5 is amended by inserting after section 402 the following: 

6 ‘‘ESTIMATES TO INCLUDE DEBT SERVICING COSTS

7 ‘‘SEC. 403. Any estimate prepared by the Congres8 sional Budget Office under section 402, and any estimate 

9 prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation, shall in10 clude, to the extent practicable, the costs (if any) of serv11 icing the public debt.’’. 

12 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 

13 of such Act is amended by inserting after the item relating 

14 to section 402 the following: 

‘‘403. Estimates to include debt servicing costs.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
## IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-50382 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. WALTER LEONARDO, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:09-CR-1079-1

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * 

### The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Tapia v. United States , 564 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011). The statement of the district judge at sentencing does support the contention that a longer sentence was given for medical care and U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

## F I L E D Februa ry 6, 201 2 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### Case: 10-50382 Document: 00511748640 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2012

### No. 10-50382

the law is clear now that this was error. We therefore vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. Sentence VACATED; REMANDED for resentencing.

2 Case: 10-50382 Document: 00511748640 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2012