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

 

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Theundersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the AnnualReport on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 ofNaturade, Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,and that the information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.

 

 
| /s/ Bill D.  Stewart      |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Bill D.  Stewart          |
| *Chief Executive Officer* |
| March 30,  2004           |
|                      |
| /s/ Stephen  M. Kasprisin |   |
| Stephen M.  Kasprisin     |
| *Chief Financial Officer* |
| March 30,  2004           |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andit will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff on request.

 

----
# L_2021450DE.01015701.xml

| 16.12.2021 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 450/157 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2021

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 450/157

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2020/1225 der Kommission vom 29. Oktober 2019 zur Festlegung technischer Durchführungsstandards für das Format und die standardisierten Meldebögen, die vom Originator, vom Sponsor und von der Verbriefungszweckgesellschaft zur Bereitstellung der Einzelheiten von Verbriefungen zu verwenden sind

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 289 vom 3. September 2020
  )

Seite 266, Anhang XII Titel:

Anstatt:

„
  Meldebogen anlegerbericht — Verbriefung nicht forderungsgedeckter geldmarktpapiere
  “

muss es heißen:

„
  Meldebogen Anlegerbericht — Verbriefung mittels anderer Instrumente als forderungsgedeckter Geldmarktpapiere
  “.

Seite 271, Anhang XIV Titel:

Anstatt:

„
  Meldebogen für insiderinformationen oder signifikante ereignisse — Verbriefung nicht forderungsgedeckter geldmarktpapiere
  “

muss es heißen:

„
  Meldebogen für Insiderinformationen oder signifikante Ereignisse — Verbriefung mittels anderer Instrumente als forderungsgedeckter Geldmarktpapiere
  “.

---
NEWS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXHIBIT 11
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                                       November 30,
                                                       ------------
                                                1 9 9 7            1 9 9 6
                                                -------            -------
                                              
Fully Diluted:
   Average Shares Outstanding Disregarding
   Dilutive Convertible Preferred Stock         7,991,997          8,132,754

Assuming  Conversion  at  beginning  of
Year of:
     10% Convertible Preferred Stock            2,000,000          2,000,000
     10% Convertible Prefered Stock                57,600             57,600
      8% Convertible Preferred Stock              103,333            103,333
     12% Convertible Preferred Stock               95,238             95,238
                                               ----------         ----------
Shares Outstanding                             10,248,168         10,388,925
                                               ----------         ----------
 Income [Loss] Available to Common
   Stockholders for Fully Diluted
   Calculations                              $ (3,881,428)       $(2,954,215)
                                             -------------       ------------

Per Share Amount:
   Net Income [Loss]                               $ (.38)             $(.28)
                                                   ------              ------


This calculation is submitted in accordance with Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Release No. 9083  although it is contrary to  paragraph 48 of APB No. 15 because
it produces an antidilutive result.


<PAGE>
| CERTIFICATION                PURSUANT TO                     |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
| 18                U.S.C. SECTION 1350                        |
| AS                ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                        |
| SECTION                906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 |

| 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. |

| Date:                November 19, 2008                                                           |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                                                             |   |   |   |
| /s/                Charles Bentz                                                                 |   |   |   |
| Charles                Bentz, Chief Financial Officer Principal                Financial Officer |   |   |   |

----
EXHIBIT 32

Certification of CEO and CFO 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
on Form 10-Q of BlackRock Kelso Capital Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), James R. Maher, as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Corinne Pankovcin, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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) 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 consolidated financial condition and
consolidated results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ James R. Maher   
|Name:                 |  | James R. Maher         
|Title:                |  | Chief Executive Officer
|Date:                 |  | November 8, 2012       
|                     
|/s/ Corinne Pankovcin
|Name:                 |  | Corinne Pankovcin      
|Title:                |  | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:                 |  | November 8, 2012
### Larry Greene

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER

777 12 th Street, 3 rd Floor * Sacramento, CA 95814-1908 916/874-4800 * 916/874-4899 fax www.airquality.org June 14, 2012

Mr. Michael Guzzetta Stationary Source Division California Air Resources Board PO Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812

Subject: State Implementation Plan Revision, SMAQMD Rule 417

Dear Mr. Guzzetta:

Enclosed is the information necessary for submittal of Rule 417, Wood Burning Appliances, for revision to the State Implementation Plan. Rule 417 was adopted by the District’s Board of Directors on October 26, 2006, and reduces the emissions of particulate matter from wood burning appliances. Please also forward the information for this submittal to U.S. EPA. Thank

you.

If you have any comments or questions, please contact me at (916) 874-4851.

Sincerely,

Kevin J. Williams, Ph.D. Program Coordinator (sent via e-mail)

c: Alex Krichevsky, CARB

Attachments:

1. SIP Checklist 2. Rule 417, Final Version 3. Public Notice Evidence 4. Resolution 5. Public Comments 6. Rule 417 Evaluation Form 7. Staff Report (includes responses to comments)
§ 3560.451 General. This subpart contains special servicing, enforcement, liquidation, and other actions that the borrower may request or the Agency may implement when compliance violations, monetary defaults, or non-monetary defaults cannot be resolved through regular servicing. ( a ) *Agency obligations.* The Agency is under no obligation to offer or agree to any special servicing actions.
( b ) *Relationship to workout agreements.* Special servicing actions may be implemented either as a part of a workout agreement, developed in accordance with § 3560.453, or as an action approved by the Agency separate from a workout agreement unless indicated otherwise in this subpart.
#### John C. Rudes, Appellant, v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. et al., Respondents.

Reynolds, J. P.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Clinton County, entered upon a decision of the court at Trial Term, without a jury. The sole issue here is whether appellant is an insured under a policy of garage liability insurance issued by respondent, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., to Tremblay Chevrolet Sales, Inc. On December 17, 1963 one Donald Cook negotiated the purchase of a 1964 Chevrolet from Tremblay Chevrolet and bill of sale and bank financing arrangements were completed. Cook requested that he temporarily be permitted to drive the purchased vehicle with Tremblay’s Chevrolet dealer plates as his insurance had been canceled and his agent had not as yet procured new coverage. On January 5, 1964, some 19 days later, the ear, still bearing the dealer’s plates, left the road and struck a tree while being operated by appellant. As a result of the accident Robert Gravelle, a passenger in the car, has brought suit for injuries against, among others, appellant who seeks here to compel respondent, Hartford, to defend and indemnify him. Respondents’ position, which the trial court accepted, is that since title and possession of the car passed to Cook on December 17, 1963, Cook, and therefore appellant, was not an insured under the policy since the policy specifically provides that *“*an insured ” would not include “ any person or organization other than the named insured with respect to any automobile * * * possession of which has been transferred to another by the named insured pursuant to an agreement of sale.” We concur in the trial court’s determination. Clearly Tremblay Chevrolet permitted the use of its dealer plates in violation of section 416 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and is thus estopped to deny ownership at the time of the accident *(Switzer*v. *Aldrich,*307 N. Y. 56; *Reese*v. *Reamore,*292 N. Y. 292). However, it does not follow that respondent, Hartford, also is estopped from proving that ownership was transferred prior to the accident and thus that coverage was excluded under the contract. *Switzer*v. *Merchants Mut. Cas. Co.*(2 N Y 2d 575) relied on by appellant, does not portend a different result here where the language in the policy expressly and unquestionably excludes coverage. In *Switzer*the Court of Appeals held only that the broad language of the policy did not require that the automobile be owned by the dealer to be covered (see *Switzer*v. *Merchants Mut. Cas. Co., supra,*p. 579) and not that public policy precluded an insurer from denying ownership. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Reynolds, J. P., Aulisi, Staley, Jr., Cooke and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J. P.
§ 250.10 Availability and ordering of donated foods. ( a ) *Ordering donated foods.* The distributing agency must utilize a request-driven ordering system in submitting orders for donated foods to FNS. As part of such system, the distributing agency must provide recipient agencies with the opportunity to submit input, on at least an annual basis, in determining the donated foods from the full list that are made available to them for ordering. Based on the input received, the distributing agency must ensure that the types and forms of donated foods that recipient agencies may best utilize are made available to them for ordering. The distributing agency must also ensure that donated foods are ordered and distributed only in amounts that may be utilized efficiently and without waste.
( b ) *Provision of information on donated foods.* The distributing agency must provide recipient agencies, at their request, information that will assist them in ordering or utilization of donated foods, including information provided by USDA. Information provided to recipient agencies must include: ( 1 ) The types and quantities of donated foods that they may order;
( 2 ) Donated food specifications and nutritional value; and
( 3 ) Procedures for the disposition of donated foods that are out-of-condition or that are subject to a food recall.
( c ) *Normal food expenditures.* Section 416 donated foods must not be distributed to any recipient agencies or recipients whose normal food expenditures are reduced because of the receipt of donated foods.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2224 

To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of entries of certain mold 

press machines. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 30, 2006 

Mr. DEMINT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of entries 

of certain mold press machines. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN MOLD PRESS MACHINES ENTERED ON 

4 OR AFTER MAY 11, 1997, AND BEFORE OCTO5 BER 21, 1998. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding sections 514 and 

7 520 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514 and 1520) 

8 or any other provision of law, not later than 90 days after 

9 the receipt of the request described in subsection (b), any 

10 article— 
2 

•S 2224 IS

1 (1) that was entered, or withdrawn from ware2 house for consumption— 

3 (A) on or after May 11, 1997; and 

4 (B) before October 21, 1998; and 

5 (2) with respect to which heading 9902.84.89 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

7 States would have applied if such article had been 

8 entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consump9 tion, on December 31, 2001, 

10 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as if such heading 

11 9902.84.89 applied to such entry or withdrawal, and the 

12 Secretary of the Treasury shall refund any excess duty 

13 paid with respect to such entry. 

14 (b) REQUESTS.—Liquidation or reliquidation may be 

15 made under subsection (a) with respect to any entry only 

16 if a request therefor is filed with the Bureau of Customs 

17 and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland 

18 Security, not later than 180 days after the date of the 

19 enactment of this Act, that contains sufficient information 

20 to enable the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection— 

21 (1) to locate the entry; or 

22 (2) to reconstruct the entry if it cannot be lo23 cated. 

Æ
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.43

                              SALES INCENTIVE PLAN
                                      2005
                           VICE PRESIDENT, ACUTE CARE

The 2005 sales bonus will be based on the recorded revenues of the Quinton
products for the year-ending December 31, 2005. The 2005 sales target has been
established by the Company's CEO. 90% of the sales revenue target must be
achieved to be eligible for a bonus.

As the following table indicates, at 90% of the sales target you will be
eligible for a bonus of 10% of your base salary. At between 91% and 100% of the
sales target the bonus percentage will increase from 10% by an additional 2% for
each additional 1% of achievement. If greater than 100% of the sales target is
achieved, the bonus percentage will increase from 30% by 1% for each 1% by which
the sales target is exceeded.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
    2005            % to
                    2005
                    Sales
Base Salary         Target                Bonus
----------          ------                -----
<S>                 <C>             <C>
    TBD               90%           10% of Base Salary
                      91%           12% of Base Salary
                      92%           14% of Base Salary
                      93%           16% of Base Salary
                      94%           18% of Base Salary
                      95%           20% of Base Salary
                      96%           22% of Base Salary
                      97%           24% of Base Salary
                      98%           26% of Base Salary
                      99%           28% of Base Salary
                     100%           30% of Base Salary
                     101+%      +1% for each 1% over 100%
</TABLE>

The sales bonus, if any, will be paid no later than 30-days following the
conclusion of the audit of the financial statements for the year ending December
31, 2005 and their filing with the SEC. The audited financial statements will be
used to assure the reasonableness of the revenue amount used in computing the
bonus. If the audit and filing with the SEC is not completed by March 31, 2005,
the incentive, if any, will be paid during the following month in conjunction
with the normal payroll practices.

Separation of employment, by resignation or termination, prior to March 31, 2005
will result in the forfeiture of the bonus payment.

Please sign as acceptance and return one copy to Lynda Melugin, Director, Human
Resources, and retain the other copy for your personal files.

/s/ John R. Hinson                                 /s/ Allan Criss
----------------------                             ---------------

John Hinson                                        Allan Criss
President and CEO                                  Vice President, Acute Care

Quinton Confidential
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Giordano, Appellant.

Judgment, upon resentence, of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered January 18, 1980, affirmed. No opinion. This case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### The State ex rel. Consolidation Coal Company, Appellant, *v.*Stewart; Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Stewart*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 329.]

(No. 97-267

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided October 7, 1998.)

*Hanlon, Duff, Paleudis & Estadt Co., L.P.A.,*and *John G, Paleudis,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Craigg E. Gould,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
98-1770.

#### State v. Scott.

Cuyahoga App. No. 68907. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 22, 2010 

d1115 

Order 

 

November 22, 2010 

141431 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141431 

 COA: 296436 

Wayne CC: 93-010170-01-FC 

EVERETT BURNETT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 15, 2010 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
§ 331.10 Restricting access to select agents and toxins; security risk assessments. ( a ) An individual or entity required to register under this part may not provide an individual access to a select agent or toxin, and an individual may not access a select agent or toxin, unless the individual is approved by the Administrator or the HHS Secretary following a security risk assessment by the Attorney General.
( b ) An individual will be deemed to have access at any point in time if the individual has possession of a select agent or toxin (*e.g.*, carries, uses, or manipulates) or the ability to gain possession of a select agent or toxin.
( c ) Each individual with access to select agents or toxins must have the appropriate education, training, and/or experience to handle or use such agents or toxins.
( d ) To apply for access approval, each individual must submit the information necessary to conduct a security risk assessment to the Attorney General.
( e ) A person with valid approval from the HHS Secretary or Administrator to have access to select agents or toxins may request, through his or her Responsible Official, that the HHS Secretary or Administrator provide their approved access status to another registered individual or entity for a specified period of time. A responsible official must immediately notify the responsible official of the visiting entity if the person's access to select agents or toxins has been terminated.
( f ) An individual's security risk assessment may be expedited upon written request by the responsible official and a showing of good cause (*e.g.*, agricultural emergencies, national security, or a short-term visit by a prominent researcher). A written decision granting or denying the request will be issued.
( g ) An individual's access approval may be denied, limited, or revoked if: ( 1 ) The individual is within any of the categories described in 18 U.S.C. 175b;
( 2 ) The individual is reasonably suspected by any Federal law enforcement or intelligence agency of committing a crime set forth in 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(5); knowing involvement with an organization that engages in domestic or international terrorism (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2331) or with any other organization that engages in intentional crimes of violence; or being an agent of a foreign power as defined in 50 U.S.C. 1801; or
( 3 ) It is determined that such action is necessary to protect plant health or plant products.
( h ) An individual may appeal the Administrator's decision to deny, limit, or revoke access approval under § 331.20.
( i ) Access approval is valid for a maximum of 3 years.
( j ) The responsible official must immediately notify APHIS or CDC when an individual's access to select agents or toxins is terminated by the entity and the reasons therefore.
[70 FR 13278, Mar. 18, 2005, as amended at 77 FR 61075, Oct. 5, 2012; 82 FR 6205, Jan. 19, 2017]
2006-0655.

#### Gustin v. Chaney.

Highland App. No. 05CA7, 2006-Ohio-1049. Discretionary appeal accepted; cause held for the decision in 2005-0998, *Robinson v. Bates,*Hamilton App. No. C-040063, 160 Ohio App.3d 668, 2005-Ohio-1879; and briefing schedule stayed.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.