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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with Warner Chilcott Limiteds Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 (the Report) for the purpose of
complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Roger M. Boissonneault, the Chief Executive Officer and Paul Herendeen, the Chief Financial Officer of Warner Chilcott Limited, each certifies that, to
the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Warner Chilcott Limited.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 9, 2007



/s/ Roger M. BoissonneaultName: Roger M. BoissonneaultPresident & Chief Executive Officer/s/ Paul HerendeenName: Paul HerendeenExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


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 Warner Chilcott Limited and will be retained by
Warner Chilcott Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1944.678 Preapplication submission deadline.

Dates governing the invitation and review of HPG preapplications will be published annually in the Federal Register and may be obtained from Rural Development offices processing HPG preapplications. Preapplications received after the date specified in the Federal Register will not be considered for funding in that fiscal year and will be returned.
#### Logan *vs.*Steel’s Heirs.

Rule. Case 10.

Error to the Fayette Circuit; Hickef, Judge.

*Error coram nobis. Motion. 'Rules. Execution.*

November 9.

ChiefJustice Robertson,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This writ of error is prosecuted to reverse an order of the circuit court, quashing two executions of *fieri facias,*and a sale of land made under them or one of them A rule was served on the plaintiff in error, (defendant in the circuit court) requiring him to shew cause why the execution and sale should not be quashed, for several errors in fact and in law, specified in the rule. He appeared and demurrerd t o the assignment of errors, but the court •overruled the demurrer and quashed the executions and the sale, the plaintiff in error being the creditor .and purchaser.

As the executions are not in the record, this court .cannot decide that there was no sufficient error apparent on their faces, to justify their *quashal.*None *of the errors, except*perhaps the eighth, which is an error in fact, can be'deemed sufficient for quashing the sale; but as the record does not shew what testimony was given on the trial, this court cannot decide that facts sufficient to sustain the quashal of the sale, for the eighth error, were not proved.

Nor was there any ground for sustaining the demurrer, unless it be erroneous to unite errors in fact and in law, in the same motion or rule.

If the ancient mode of proceeding by writ of error *coram nobis*had been adopted, instead of the less technical and the usual modern remedy, by motion or rule, there can be no doubt that the circuit court *42ought to have sustained the demurrer. For it is well settled, that it is error to unite in such a writ, both fact and law; because, 1st, such confusion in *pleading*is inconvenient and incongruous; and 2d, moc*e °f trying the fact and that of deciding the ^aw’ are different; the former being (in such a case) tried by a jury, and the latter being decided by the court.

In a writ of *nobis rr*unite errors of fact and law is *error.*

It is not cessaryinmotions, to observethesame technical strictness which is required in pleading.

*^rule'to*shew execution7 or sale shall not be quas*h*ed.

*WicJiliffe*and *Wooleij*for plaintiff; *Haggin*for defendants.

Lut neither of these reasons applies to the less formal proceeding by motion. Motions and rules, are tried by the court without a jury, whether they contain matter of fact or of law; and it is not usual or necessary in a motion, to observe the technical strictness required in pleading.

Wherefore it seems to the court, that errors in fact and in law, may be well joined in the same motion or rule, for quashing an execution or sale; and consequently the circuit court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the assignment of errors. Nor is there any thing in the record which will authorise a reversal of the order quashing the executions and sale, even though it may have been, in fact erroneous,

Judgment affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2352
ROBERT P. SLABY; LOUISE A. SLABY, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versusWILLIAM D. BERKSHIRE; 1691 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; LANCER CORPORATION; CROFTON COUNTRY CLUB; JOHN DOE, Defendants - Appellees, and WILLIAM SPORRE; MARK SPOLARICH; NEIL T. BELL, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Joseph H. Young, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-1633-Y) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 2, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert B. Slaby, Louise A. Sl aby, Appellants Pro Se. Lynn T. Krause, KRAUSE & FERRIS, P.A., Annapolis, Maryland; Kathryn MillerGoldman, WEINER, ASTRACHAN, GUNST, HILLMAN & ALLEN, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.23 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district court's order entering judgmentfor Appellees on Appellants' claim alleging discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101- 12213 (West 1995 & Supp. 1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Slaby v. Berkshire , No. CA-94-1633-Y (D. Md. Aug. 6, 1996). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:02-cr-00045-MP-GRJ-3

CRAIG CHARLES BOLLES, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 198, Motion to Continue Evidentiary

Hearing by Craig Charles Bolles. The defendant is currently scheduled for an

evidentiary hearing on February 23, 2012. However, the Assistant Federal Public

Defender appointed to represent defendant is scheduled for a three week trial beginning

February 13, 2012. As such, the defendant moves the Court to continue the evidentiary

hearing for approximately sixty (60) days. The government offers no objection to the

motion to continue.

The Court agrees that the evidentiary hearing should be continued but finds that

sixty (60) days is unnecessary.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendant’s motion to continue evidentiary hearing, doc. 198, is

GRANTED.

Case 1:02-cr-00045-MP-GRJ Document 200 Filed 02/07/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. The Clerk is directed to reschedule the evidentiary hearing for March 13,

2012 at 10:00 a.m.

DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of February, 2012. 

áBZtÜç eA ]ÉÇxá 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 1:02-cr-00045-MP-GRJ-3

Case 1:02-cr-00045-MP-GRJ Document 200 Filed 02/07/12 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
      32.2








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 Chardan South China Acquisition
      Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007
      (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof, I, Dr. Richard D. Propper, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of
      the
      Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec.
      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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/
                Richard D. Propper
            
            Dated:
                August 14, 2007Dr.
                Richard D. PropperChief
                Financial Officer(Principal
                Accounting and Financial Officer)
§ 1783.7 What is the grant application process? ( a ) The applicant must complete and submit the following items to RUS to apply for a grant under this part: ( 1 ) Application for Federal Assistance: *Standard Form 424;*
( 2 ) Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs: *Standard Form 424A;*
( 3 ) Assurances—Non-Construction Programs: *Standard Form 424B;*
( 4 ) Evidence of applicant's legal existence and authority in the form of certified copies of organizational documents and a certified list of directors and officers with their respective terms;
( 5 ) Evidence of tax exempt status, and
( 6 ) Most recent annual audit conducted by an independent auditor.
( b ) The applicant must submit a written work plan that demonstrates the ability of the applicant to make and service loans to eligible entities under this program and the feasibility of the applicant's lending program to meet the objectives of this part.
( c ) The applicant should submit a narrative establishing the basis for any claims that it has substantial expertise in making and servicing loans. The Secretary will give priority to an applicant that demonstrates it has substantial experience of this type.
( d ) The applicant may submit such additional information as it elects to support and describe its plan for achieving the objectives of the part.
OFFICLAL NOTICE FROM COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS OFTEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS78711

OFFICIAL BUSINESS t-^Ha^i^ <? '*

^°g,j

STATE OF TEXAS

PENALTY FOR

10/29/2014 PRIVATE USE

PHIFER, KEVIN LEE

viriffl.F^rTC PITNtV HOWES

02 1R $ 00.26s

0006557458 OCT31 2014

Tr. Ct No. WO^O^^Af,LEDFROM z,p ,R7m

82,351-01

On this day, the application for 11:07 Writ of Habeas Corpus has been received

and presented to the Court. '>: 7":. '

UNABLE TO

LOCATE W/O

TDC3 #

ANfC NSN REF NOU

KEVIN LEE PHIFER

SMITH UNIT- TDC.# 1311767

7-313 COUNTY ROAD 19

LA MESA, TX 79331-1898

Abel Acosta, Clerk

'if*'".-. ,'

*'* A^SS l*At'jBS3at ft* IBS '

i
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August

13 , 2019

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 19 -00243- CV

DIANA GORDON OFFORD, WINTER GORDON, JR. AND JOYCE STEIN, Appellants
V. PURPLE MARTIN LAND COMPANY, LLC, Appellee
On Appeal from the 268th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 15- DCV -225272

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a judgment signed February 21, 2019. On July 25, 2019, appellants filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
PER CURIAM Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
EXHIBIT 10.4

                    WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC.
              NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION


     On  December  1,  2009,  the   Compensation  Committee  (the
"Committee")  of  the  Board of Directors of Werner  Enterprises,
Inc.  (the  "Company") approved the following base  salaries  and
performance-based compensation awards, in the form of annual cash
bonuses, for the Company's principal executive officer, principal
financial officer and other named executive officers.   The  base
salaries  were effective as of January 1, 2010.  The 2009  annual
cash  bonuses  were  awarded  under the  Company's  discretionary
annual  cash  bonus  program and were paid on December  7,  2009.
Such performance-based compensation awards are determined at  the
sole discretion of the Committee.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                   Name                                            Base Salary      Cash Bonus
---------------------------------------------------------------    -----------      ----------
<S>                                                                   <C>             <C>
Clarence L. Werner
Chairman                                                              $715,000              $0

Gary L. Werner
Vice Chairman                                                         $355,000        $205,000

Gregory L. Werner
President and Chief Executive Officer                                 $720,000        $300,000

Derek J. Leathers
Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer           $369,000        $240,000

John J. Steele
Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer       $210,000        $110,000

</TABLE>

     In  addition  to  the  cash  compensation  described  above,
certain  of  the  Company's  named executive  officers  may  also
receive   the   following  other  compensation  and  perquisites:
matching contributions to the Company's 401(k) retirement savings
plan and employee stock purchase plan, personal use of a Company-
provided   vehicle,  country  club  membership  and  income   tax
preparation  services.   The named executive  officers  are  also
eligible  to participate in voluntary health and welfare  benefit
programs sponsored by the Company.
Exhibit 32.2**Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906**In connection with the quarterly report of Orchids Paper Products Company (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Keith R. Schroeder, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 ofTitle 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange 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/ Keith R. Schroeder     Keith R. Schroeder  Chief Financial Officer  May 11, 2006
25
Editorial Note on Part 1980
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1980 appear at 80 FR 9905, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1980.445 Periodic financial statements and audits. All borrowers will be required to submit periodic financial statements to the lender. Lenders must forward copies of the financial statements and the lender's analysis of the statements to the Agency. ( a ) *Audited financial statements.* Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, all borrowers with a total principal and interest loan balance for loans under this subpart, at the end of the borrower's fiscal year, of more than $1 million must submit annual audited financial statements. The audit must be performed in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and any other requirements specified in this subpart.
( b ) *Unaudited financial statements.* For borrowers with a loan balance (principal plus interest at year-end) of $1 million or less, the Agency will require annual financial statements which may be statements compiled or reviewed by an accountant qualified in accordance with the publication “Standards for Audit of Governmental Organizations, Programs, Activities and Functions” instead of audited financial statements.
( c ) *Internal financial statements.* The Agency may require submission of financial statements prepared by the borrower at whatever frequency is determined necessary to adequately monitor the loan. Quarterly financial statements will be required on new business enterprises or those needing close monitoring.
( d ) *Minimum requirements.* This section sets out minimum requirements for audited and unaudited financial statements to be submitted to the Agency. If specific circumstances warrant, the Agency may require audited financial statements or independent unaudited financial statements in excess of the minimum requirements. For example, loans that depend heavily on inventory and accounts receivable for collateral will normally be audited, regardless of the size of the loan. Nothing in this section shall be considered an impediment to the lender requiring financial statements more frequently than required by the Agency or requiring audited financial statements when the Agency would accept unaudited financial statements.
( e ) *Public bodies and nonprofit corporations.* Notwithstanding other provisions of this section, any public body or nonprofit corporation that receives a guarantee of a loan that meets the thresholds established by 2 CFR part 200, subpart F, as codified by 2 CFR 400.1, must provide an audit for the fiscal year of the borrower in which the Loan Note Guarantee is issued. If the loan is for development or purchases made in a previous fiscal year through interim financing, an audit will also be provided for the fiscal year in which the development or purchases occurred. Any audit provided by a public body or nonprofit corporation required by this paragraph will be considered adequate to meet the requirements of this section for that year.
#### § 22.103 Purpose.

The purpose of these regulations is to establish the policies, procedures, and responsibilities required by section 603 of the Rural Development Act.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Section 906 Certification**

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350),the undersigned officer of Guaranty Bancorp (the “Company”) herebycertifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: August 7, 2008

 

 
|   |   | /s/   Paul W. Taylor |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Paul W. Taylor                      |
|   | Title: | *Chief Financial Officer*           |

 

Theforegoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and is notbeing filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

----
From: Montalvo Kara M [Kara.Montalvo@srpnet.com]

Sent: 08/24/2012 08:41 PM GMT
To: Deborah Jordan; Colleen McKaughan
Cc: "Pratt James M (Jim)" <Jim.Pratt@srpnet.com>; Barr Kelly J <Kelly.Barr@srpnet.com> ; Sprungl Barbara J <Barbara.Sprungl@srpnet.com>; "Olsen Robert A (Bobby)" <Bobby.Olsen@srpnet.com> Subject: Letter Providing Additional Information on Coronado Unit 2

Good Afternoon Debbie and Colleen

–

Please find attached a letter signed by Jim Prat t providing SRP’s response to the letter you sent to Kelly Barr on July 27, 2012, requesting additional information regarding the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system under construction at SRP’s Coronado Generating Station Unit 2. A hard copy of this letter is being sent Federal Express for arrival at Region 9 by tomorrow.

Both Jim and Kelly are out of the office today, but will be available next week if you have any questions regarding the content of this letter. In the interim, if you have any imm ediate questions, please feel free

to contact me.

Regards,

Kara

Kara M. Montalvo, QEP Director, Environmental Compliance & Permitting Salt River Project (602) 236

- 5256

- v (602) 236

- 3407

- f kara.montalvo@ srpnet.com
exv10w36



 






Exhibit 10.36




Addendum to Employment Contract




      Agreement made as of December 1, 2004, between Beverly Enterprises, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), and Douglas J. Babb (the “Executive”);



      WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Employment Contract of April 1,
2000 between them;



      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements and understandings set forth herein
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Company and the Executive hereby agree as follows:




	 	1.  	Add a new section 4(b)(xiii) which reads: “Executive will continue as a
participant in the Company’s Enhanced Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan pursuant
to its terms.”
	 
	 	2.  	Add a new section 4(b)(xiv) which reads: “Executive will continue as a
participant in the Company’s Long Term Care Plan pursuant to its terms.”
	 
	 	3.  	Add a new section 4(b)(xv) which reads: “Executive will continue as a participant in the
Company’s Executive Allowance Program pursuant to its terms.”





      4. Revise section 7(c)(ii) to read: “The Company shall maintain in force, at its own expense, for
the remainder of the Executive’s life, life insurance under the Company’s Executive Split Dollar
Life Insurance Plan in an amount not less than $325,000.00, naming the Executive as beneficiary,
and payable to Executive’s estate upon death.”



      The parties have duly executed this Agreement to be effective as of the date first written
above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	Beverly Enterprises, Inc.
	 	Executive
	

	 	 	 	 
	By:
	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 
	 	 
	

	 	Chair, Nominating and
Compensation Committee

Board of Director
	 	Douglas J. Babb
	

	 	 	 	 
	By:
	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 	 	 
	

	 	William R. Floyd

Chairman, President and CEO
```

[108th Congress Public Law 298]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ298.108]

[[Page 118 STAT. 1099]]

Public Law 108-298
108th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
7450 Natural Bridge Road in St. Louis, Missouri, as the ``Vitilas `Veto' 
   Reid Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Aug. 9, 2004 -  [H.R. 4327]>> 

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 7450 
Natural Bridge Road in St. Louis, Missouri, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Vitilas `Veto' Reid Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Vitilas `Veto' Reid Post 
Office Building''.

    Approved August 9, 2004.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4327:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD,
                                                        Vol. 150 (2004):
            July 6, considered and passed House.
            July 22, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### §§ 205.512-205.599 [Reserved]