alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1
  Section 1350
Certification
  The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the Form
10-K of RFMC Tactical Advisors Fund, LP pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350).
  The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on Form 10-K fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of RFMC Tactical Advisors Fund, LP.
  March 31, 2010
  /s/
Robert L. Lerner Robert L. LernerPresident, Principal Executive Officer
and   Principal Financial OfficerRuvane Fund Management
Corporation,the general partner of RFMC Tactical Advisors Fund,
LP
#### In the Matter of the Estate of John N. Burlein, Deceased. Eben C. Gould, Appellant; Anna B. Philips, Respondent.

Motion by appellant to resettle order dated July 5, 1966 granted as follows: Decision (26 A D 2d 667) and order, both dated July 5, 1966 amended by adding a provision to the decretal paragraph granting interest on the award of $1,000, commencing July 14, 1959. *(Matter of Noble,*1 A D 2d 900.) Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1951

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Some of the exhibits referenced in this part 1951 are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Exhibits are available in any Rural Development office.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1951 appear at 80 FR 9890-9894, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1951.895 [Reserved]
EX-10.26



 






Exhibit 10.26




VCA ANTECH, INC.

SUMMARY OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMPENSATION

2005




      Each director who is a non-employee receives compensation as set forth below, in accordance
with the compensation program for non-employee directors approved by the Board of Directors.



	 	 	 
	Annual Retainer

	 	 $10,000 per annum
	 
	 	 
	In Person Board, Shareholder or
	 	 
	Committee Meeting

	 	 $1,000
	 
	 	 
	Audit Committee Chair Fee

	 	 $10,000 per annum
	 
	 	 
	Equity Compensation

	 	Upon appointment to the Board of
Directors, each non-employee
director is entitled to receive
an option grant to purchase
30,000 shares of our common stock
under our 2001 Stock Incentive
Plan. These options vest in two
equal annual installments
beginning on the first
anniversary of the grant date and
are exercisable at the fair
market value of the underlying
stock on the grant date.
	 
	 	 
	

	 	Thereafter, on the anniversary of
each non-employee director’s
appointment to the Board of
Directors, each non-employee
director is entitled to receive
an annual option grant to
purchase 10,000 shares of our
common stock under our 2001 Stock
Incentive Plan. These options
vest in full on the first
anniversary date of the grant and
are exercisable at the fair
market value of the underlying
stock on the grant date.
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

VS CASE NO. 3:97cr85/LAC

DWIGHT M. SPENCER

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on October 23, 2008

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION TO REVIEW PREVIOUSLY FILED MOTION UNDER 

3582(c)(2) - CRACK COCAINE AMENDMENT §706-715

Filed by Defendant pro se on 10/09/2008 Doc.# 149

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

 Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/ Susan Simms

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Susan Simms

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 23rd day of

October, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) 

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:97-cr-00085-LC-MD Document 150 Filed 10/23/08 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF W. RANDALL FOWLER, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**OF EPE HOLDINGS, LLC, THE GENERAL PARTNER OF**

**ENTERPRISE GP HOLDINGS L.P.**

 

In connection with this quarterly report of Enterprise GP Holdings L.P. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, W. Randall Fowler, Chief Financial Officer of EPE Holdings, LLC, the general partner of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
| (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Registrant. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

___/s/ W. Randall Fowler________________________________
| Name: | W. Randall Fowler |  
Title:  

Chief Financial Officer of EPE Holdings, LLC

 
on behalf of Enterprise GP Holdings L.P.

 
 

 

Date:  

November 8, 2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

  |
|-------|-------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), I, Chet Kapoor, hereby certify that, to my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Companys Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2015 to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Apigee Corporation.
| | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: June 22, 2015



By:/s/ Chet KapoorChet KapoorChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


This certification accompanies the Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Apigee Corporation under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act (whether made before or after
the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Fox, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Fox*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 514.]

(No. 98-682

Submitted September 15, 1998

Decided November 10, 1998.)

*515
      *Alan R. Mayberry,*Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

*David H. Bodiker,*Ohio Public Defender, and *William S. Lazarow,*Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

*Per Curiam.*

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. “Under App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), an application for reopening requires ‘a showing of good cause for untimely filing if the application is filed more than ninety days after journaliza*516tion of the appellate judgment.’ ” *State v. Wickline*(1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 369, 371, 658 N.E.2d 1052, 1053.

The state asserts that current counsel, David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, and William S. Lazarow, Assistant Public Defender, have represented Fox since at least June 21, 1995, when they filed the petition for postconviction relief in the trial court. Fox has not denied that claim. Thus, even if we were to assume good cause existed before June 21, 1995, because counsel cannot be expected to argue their own ineffectiveness, *State v. Lentz*(1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 527, 529-530, 639 N.E.2d 784, 785, that good cause has long since evaporated. Good cause can excuse the lack of a filing only while it exists, not for an indefinite period. See *State v. Hill*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 174, 677 N.E.2d 337; *State v. Carter*(1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 642, 640 N.E.2d 811. We specifically reject Fox’s claim that “once an applicant has established good cause for filing more than ninety days after journalization * * *, it does not matter when the application is filed.”

Accordingly, we agree with the court of appeals that Fox has not established good cause for his late filing of the application for reopening.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Resnick, J., not participating.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                        POLK AUDIO, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Fiscal  Years Ended
                                          --------------------------------------
                                           March 30,     March 31,     March 26,
                                             1997          1996          1995
                                          ----------     ---------     ---------
<S>                                       <C>            <C>           <C>      
Earnings per share:


Net earnings                              $  751,729     1,173,711     1,451,936
                                          ==========     =========     =========


Weighted average number of
 shares outstanding                        1,811,849     1,634,295     1,616,307

Weighted average number of common
 stock equivalents                            15,617        65,852        57,355
                                          ----------     ---------     ---------

Adjusted weighted average number
 of shares outstanding                     1,827,466     1,700,147     1,673,662
                                          ----------     ---------     ---------

      Earnings per share                  $     0.41          0.69          0.86
                                          ==========     =========     =========
</TABLE>






                                       41
#### §§ 205.692-205.699 [Reserved]
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

AVERY GOSS,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5369/LAC/EMT

SCOTT DUNCAN

and AMY C. SHEA,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on

September 14, 2020 (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff was furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined it 

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 

14) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice, 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)–(iii) and § 1915A(b)(1)–(2).

Case 3:20-cv-05369-LC-EMT Document 16 Filed 10/16/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No.: 3:20cv5369/LAC/EMT

3. The clerk of court must enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of October, 2020.

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

s/L.A. Collier 

Case 3:20-cv-05369-LC-EMT Document 16 Filed 10/16/20 Page 2 of 2
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 15, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

_______________


### m 06-10545

_______________



### J ONES 

### P ARTNERS 

### C ONSTRUCTION 

### , LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant 

### , VERSUS


### APOPKA 

### P LAZA 

### A SSOCIATES 

### , LLC, AND 

### U.S. B ANK 

### N AT IONAL 

### A SSOCIATION 

### , Defendants-Appellee 

### s.

_________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Texas 

### m 3:04-CV-1294

______________________________

Before G ARWOOD , S MITH , and D EM OSS , Circuit Judges.
P ER C URIAM : * Jones Partners Construction, LLC (“Jones Partners”), sued U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) fo r fraud, alleging th at U.S. Bank had created a false impression about funds from a lo an U.S. Bank had made to A p opka Pl aza Associates, LLC (“Apopka”) 

### SS a com pany th at hired Jones Partners to serve as managers on a construction proj ect. Jones Partners asserts th at one of U.S. Bank’s lo an of ficers told a Jones Partners executive about U.S. Bank’s lo an to Apopka and solicit ed Jones Partners to work on the proj ect. Meanwhile, this same lo an of ficer knew th at * Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.2

the loan proceeds had been exhausted almost com pletely to cover up an illic i t transaction between the lo an of

ficer and an Apopka executive, leaving insufficient funds to pay Jones Partners for its work.
T he di strict court granted summary judgment fo r U.S. Bank. It found that no reasonable juror could conclude t hat U.S. Bank’s conduct created a f

alse impression that funds would be available to pay fo r construction costs because, if anyt hing, U.S. Bank’s statement s conveyed the impression th at this project and lo an were both in trouble. U.S. Bank’s lo an of

ficer told Jones Partners th at the int erest on the lo an was “eating [Apopka] alive” and that Apopka and U.S. Bank really needed Jones Partners to help. These statement s indicate trouble 

### SS

not a guarant ee of a lo an sufficient to fund payments to Jones Partners. Because the court found that U.S. Bank did not create a false impression, it concluded Jones Par tn ers could not make out a case for fraud or for fraudulent concealment. 1
“This Court r eviews grants of summary judgment de novo , applying the same standard as the district court, viewing the evidence in a light mo st favorable to the non-movant.” Fruge ex rel. Fruge v. Parker Drilli ng Co. , 337 F.3d 558, 560 (5th Cir. 2003). We have carefully examined the briefs and relevant portions of the record and hav e heard the argument s of counsel. Essentially for the reasons stated in the district court’ s Mem orandum Opinion and Order, we AFFIRM.

1 Jones Partners’ fraudulent concealment claim relied on Jones Partners’ establishing that U.S. Bank had created a false impression.
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

§ 283.13 Subpoenas. ( a ) *Issuance of subpoenas.* The attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of documentary evidence from any place in the United States on behalf of any party to the appeal may be required by subpoena at the designated place of hearing. Except for cause shown, requests for subpoenas shall be filed at least 15 days prior to the date of the hearing. Subpoenas shall be issued by the ALJ, over the facsimile signature of the Secretary, upon a reasonable showing by the applicant of the grounds, necessity and reasonable scope thereof.
( b ) *Service of subpoenas.* ( 1 ) When the ALJ issues a subpoena under this section, the party who requested such subpoena shall serve all other parties with a copy of the subpoena, notice of the names and addresses of the individuals subpoenaed and specify any documents required to be produced.
( 2 ) Subpoenas may be served: ( i ) By a U.S. Marshal or deputy marshal,
( ii ) By any other person who is not less than 18 years of age, or
( iii ) By registering and mailing a copy of the subpoena addressed to the person to be served at the last known principal place of business or residence.
( 3 ) Proof of service may be made: ( i ) By the return of service on the subpoena by the U.S. Marshal or deputy marshal,
( ii ) If served by an employee of the Department, by a certificate stating that he personally served the subpoena upon the person named therein,
( iii ) If served by another person, by an affidavit of such person stating that he personally served the subpoena upon the person named therein, or
( iv ) If service was by registered mail, by an affidavit made by the person mailing the subpoena that it was mailed as provided herein and by the signed return post-office receipt. Where the subpoena is issued on behalf of the Secretary and service is by mail, the return receipt without an affidavit or certificate of mailing shall be sufficient proof of service.
( 4 ) In making personal service, the person making service shall leave a copy of the subpoena with the person subpoenaed, or, if such person is not immediately available, with any other responsible person authorized to accept service residing or employed at the place of residence or business of the person subpoenaed.
( 5 ) The original of the subpoena, bearing or accompanied by the required proof of service, shall be returned to the official who issued the same. The party at whose request the subpoena is issued shall be responsible for the service thereof.
**Exhibit32.2**

Certification ofPrincipal Financial OfficerPursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/Afor the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”) of Federal ServicesAcquisition Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Peter M. Schulte, President andChief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify that:

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Registrant.
| Date: December 5, 2006 |       | By:        |   | /s/ Peter M.  Schulte                      |
|------------------------|------------|------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|                   | ** ** | ** ** |   | **Peter  M. Schulte**                      |
|                   | ** ** | ** ** |   | **President  and Chief Financial Officer** |
|                   | ** ** | ** ** |   | **(Principal  Financial Officer)**         |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOSEPH F. LIGON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 207 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 17th day of September, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
98-1297.

#### State v. Oller.

Marion App. No. 9-97-53. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; *sua sponte,*cause held for the decision in 97-1985, *State v. Cook,*Allen App. No. 1-97-21; briefing schedule stayed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
96-1433.

#### Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Rea.

This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing on July 17,1998, by the Clients’ Security Fund of a motion for order to show cause why respondent should not be found in contempt for failure to comply with this court’s order of March 26, 1997. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by this court, *sua sponte,*that Rebecca Anne Rea, Attorney Registration No. 0037283, last known address in Canton, Ohio, is found in contempt for failure to comply with this court’s order of March 26, 1997. It is further ordered that this cause be referred to the Office of the Attorney General for collection.
98-1904.

#### State ex rel. Raypole v. Mengel.

In Mandamus. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>



                                                              EXHIBIT  23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 No. 33- 58084) pertaining to 20,342,770 Common Shares; (Form S-3 No.
333-15647) pertaining to 1,513,790 Common Shares; (Form S-8 No. 33-37398)
pertaining to the 1987 Stock Option Plan and (Form S-8 Nos. 33-58082, 33-90928
and 333-05659) pertaining to the 1992 Stock Option Plan with respect to
2,250,000 Common Shares of AMNEX, Inc. of our report dated March 18, 1998, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of AMNEX, Inc.
included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



                                                       ERNST & YOUNG LLP

New York, New York
March 27, 1998
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JAMI CLAIRE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv20-MW/MAF

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

MANAGEMENT SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE REPLY

This Court has considered, without hearing, Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for 

leave to file a reply to Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief. ECF 

No. 184. The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ reply is due on or before Tuesday, 

October 22, 2024.

SO ORDERED on October 15, 2024.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 185 Filed 10/15/24 Page 1 of 1
#### § 29.2623 Rule 7.

Any lot of tobacco which meets the specifications of two grades shall be placed in the higher grade. Any lot of tobacco on the marginal line between two grades shall be placed in the lower grade.
#### Herlou Card Shop, Inc., Respondent-Appellant, v Prudential Insurance Company of America, Appellant-Respondent.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 6, 1978, in favor of plaintiff for $55,000, with interest and costs, after jury trial, is unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs to defendant, and the complaint is dismissed. This commercial lease expressly provided that it could not be assigned without the landlord’s consent; there was no limitation in the lease that such consent should not be unreasonably withheld. Furthermore, the tenant was several months in default in payment of rent, and pursuant to the provisions of the lease, the landlord had served a notice to terminate the lease. The plaintiff tenant did not have the money to cure the default in rent. In the circumstances, the landlord was merely exercising its legal contractual rights in refusing to consent to an assignment of the lease unless the lease was modified to increase the rent. Such an exercise of the landlord’s legal rights does not constitute economic duress so as to entitle the tenant to damages. *(Muller Constr. Co. v New York Tel Co.,*40 NY2d 955.) Concur — Bloom, J. P., Markewich, Silverman and Ross, JJ.