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

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL

OFFICER

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Material Sciences Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended August 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Clifford D. Nastas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



October 9, 2009By:

/s/ Clifford D. NastasClifford D. NastasChief Executive Officer


In connection with the Report, I, James M. Froisland, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer, Chief Information Officer and Corporate Secretary of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



October 9, 2009By:

/s/ James M. FroislandJames M. FroislandSenior Vice President, ChiefFinancial Officer, Chief InformationOfficer and Corporate Secretary




39
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2445 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2445

To permit certain school districts in Illinois to be reconstituted for 
    purposes of determining assistance under the Impact Aid program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 16 (legislative day, March 15), 2006

 Mr. Durbin (for himself and Mr. Obama) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To permit certain school districts in Illinois to be reconstituted for 
    purposes of determining assistance under the Impact Aid program.

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

SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR IMPACT AID PAYMENT.

    (a) Local Educational Agencies.--Notwithstanding section 8013(9)(B) 
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
7713(9)(B)), North Chicago Community Unit School District 187, North 
Shore District 112, and Township High School District 113 in Lake 
County, Illinois, and Glenview Public School District 34 and Glenbrook 
High School District 225 in Cook County, Illinois, shall be considered 
local educational agencies as such term is used in and for purposes of 
title VIII of such Act.
    (b) Computation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
federally connected children (as determined under section 8003(a) of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(a))) 
who are in attendance in the North Shore District 112, Township High 
School District 113, Glenview Public School District 34, and Glenbrook 
High School District 225 described in subsection (a), shall be 
considered to be in attendance in the North Chicago Community Unit 
School District 187 described in subsection (a) for purposes of 
computing the amount that the North Chicago Community Unit School 
District 187 is eligible to receive under subsection (b) or (d) of such 
section if--
            (1) such school districts have entered into an agreement 
        for such students to be so considered and for the equitable 
        apportionment among all such school districts of any amount 
        received by the North Chicago Community Unit School District 
        187 under such section; and
            (2) any amount apportioned among all such school districts 
        pursuant to paragraph (1) is used by such school districts only 
        for the direct provision of educational services.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 32
 Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: February 11, 2008
    /s/ Kevin CummingsKevin CummingsPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)Date: February 11, 2008
    /s/ Thomas F. Splaine, Jr.Thomas F. Splaine, Jr.Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### Theodore LANG, Jr. v. WINDSOR MOUNT JOY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. et al.

Civ. A. No. 80-983.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

Feb. 25, 1981.

Dante Mattioni, Reading, Pa., for plaintiff.

John W. Dry, Peter F. Cianci, Reading, Pa., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM

TROUTMAN, District Judge.

Following dismissal of this action for lack of complete diversity of citizenship, *see Lang v. Windsor Mount Joy Mutual Insurance Co.,*487 F.Supp. 1303 (E.D.Pa.), *aff’d,*636 F.2d 1209 (3d Cir. 1980), plaintiff subsequently filed an identical action now pending before this Court, seeking to circumvent this defect by altering the allegation of plaintiff’s domicile. *See Lang v. Windsor*
      *968
      *Mount Joy Mutual Insurance Co.,*493 F.Supp. 97 (E.D.Pa.1980). Plaintiff now seeks to transfer the original, now defunct, action to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on the basis of 42 Pa. Const.Stat.Ann. § 5103, which provides in pertinent part that if a

> matter is taken to or brought in a [Pennsylvania] court ... which does not have jurisdiction ... the court . .. shall transfer the record thereof to the proper court . .. where the ... matter shall be treated as if originally filed in the transferee court ...

> [This section] shall also apply to any matter transferred or remanded by any United States court for a district embracing any part of this Commonwealth ... The pleadings shall have the same effect as under the practice in the United States court ...

The second part of this section affords retroactive effect to matters properly remanded from federal to state courts for purposes of statutes of limitations. The section does not, and indeed cannot, confer authority upon federal courts to transfer to state court a case over which the federal court did not have jurisdiction in the first place.

True, in diversity actions federal courts apply the substantive law of the state wherein the court sits. *Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins,*304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). However, the federal Constitution and federal statutes, not state statutes, delineate the proper and possible scope of federal jurisdiction. *Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger,*437 U.S. 365, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978), *Holman v. Carpenter Technology Corp.,*484 F.Supp. 406 (E.D.Pa.1980). Parties to litigation can neither agree to nor create federal jurisdiction. *Kramer v. Caribbean Mills, Inc.,*394 U.S. 823, 89 S.Ct. 1487, 23 L.Ed.2d 9 (1969). *See also Curzi v. Turioscy,*507 F.Supp. 807 (E.D.Pa.1981), *Lang v. Windsor Mount Joy Mutual Insurance Co. (I), supra,*and 28 U.S.C. § 1359. If the Court determines that it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the lawsuit, the Court can only dismiss the action. *Carlsberg Resources Corp. v. Cambria Savings & Loan Association,*554 F.2d 1254 (3d Cir. 1977).

Having determined previously that federal jurisdiction did not exist for resolution of this controversy, this Court retains no power to transfer or otherwise determine the rights of the parties thereto. Accordingly, plaintiff’s petition to transfer will be denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gary William Clyde, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, and indictment dismissed. Memorandum: On August 7, 1976 defendant was arrested and charged with arson, second degree. On June 18,-. 1978, he moved for dismissal pursuant to CPL 210.20 (subd 1, par [g]) and *104830.30. He acknowledged in his moving papers that some 62 days (Oct. 13, 1976 to Nov. 23, 1976 and April 6, 1978 to April 27, 1978) were attributable to him but claimed no responsibility for the remaining period of delay. The People answered that they had been ready for trial at all times (except a one-week period in Jan., 1978 during which they were locating a witness) and that the remaining delay was attributable to court congestion. We find it unnecessary to consider the disputed period after January 12, 1978. Accepting as true the People’s claim that they announced the case ready for trial on November 24, 1976 (the record, however, indicates that defendant moved the case to the Trial Calendar without comment by the District Attorney) (see *People v Hamilton,*46 NY2d 932), the delay from November 24, 1976 to January 3, 1978 is wholly unexplained on this record and the People concede that at least three indictments filed subsequent to defendant’s were tried before his. It is not enough for the People to allege calendar congestion as a cause for delay; they must establish it as such on the record (see *People v Williams,*67 AD2d 1094). Having had their hearing (before another Judge) and failed to excuse the delay established by the defendant, the judgment must be reversed and the indictment dismissed (see *People v Havelka,*45 NY2d 636). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court—arson, second degree.) Present—Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Callahan and Witmer, JJ.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**MORLEX,
      INC.**


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





The
      undersigned hereby certifies that, to my knowledge, the annual report of Morlex,
      Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended December 31,
      2007 (the “Annual Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      and
      that the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be a part of the Annual Report or
“filed” for any purpose whatsoever.





Date:
                  October 24, 2008
              /s/
                    Richard J. BermanRichard
                  J. BermanChairman
                  of the Board(Principal
                  Executive Officer)
|   | 1. |   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                         |
|--------|----|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | 2. |   | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |

|                         | India      Globalization Capital, Inc. |                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|------------------------------|----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         |                                   |                                                                                                                                                                                        |   |
| Date:      November 12, 2009 | By:                                    | /s/ Ram      Mukunda                            |   |
|                         |                                   | Ram      Mukunda                                                                                                                                                                            |   |
|                         |                                   | Chief      Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer)                                                                                                               |   |
#### §§ 4288.14-4288.19 [Reserved]
4.201 Procedures.       Contracting officers shall distribute copies of contracts or modifications within 10 working days after execution by all parties. As a minimum, the contracting officer shall-                                       (a)                    						            Distribute simultaneously one signed copy or reproduction of the signed contract to the contractor and the paying office;                                          (b)                    						            When a contract is assigned to another office for contract administration (see subpart  42.2), provide to that office-                                                         (1)                          								                One copy or reproduction of the signed contract and of each modification; and                                                            (2)                          								                A copy of the contract distribution list, showing those offices that should receive copies of modifications, and any changes to the list as they occur;                                                                             (c)                    						            Distribute one copy to each accounting and finance office (funding office) whose funds are cited in the contract;                                          (d)                    						            When the contract is not assigned for administration but contains a Cost Accounting Standards clause, provide one copy of the contract to the cognizant administrative contracting officer and mark the copy *"For Cost Accounting Standards Administration Only"* (see 30.601(b));                                          (e)                    						            Provide one copy of each contract or modification that requires audit service to the appropriate field audit office listed in the *"Directory of Federal Contract Audit Offices"* (see 42.103); and                                          (f)                    						            Provide copies of contracts and modifications to those organizations required to perform contract administration support functions (*e.g.,* when manufacturing is performed at multiple sites, the contract administration office cognizant of each location).    **Parent topic:** Subpart 4.2 - Contract Distribution
Exhibit 10.26

DESCRIPTION OF DIRECTORS AND NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS COMPENSATION

The compensation payable to all of the Company's non-employee directors is as
follows:

      o     An annual cash retainer of $5,000.00.

      o     In addition, non-employee directors each receive $700.00 for each
            regular meeting of the Board of Directors attended.

      o     In addition, members of the Audit Committee are paid $250.00 for
            each Audit Committee meeting attended.

The compensation of executive officers is reviewed and adjusted on an annual
basis as of the individual's anniversary date of hire, based upon the approval
of the Executive Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.

As of March 13, 2005, current annual salaries of each of the following executive
officers is shown below:

              ----------------------------------------------
                           Name                Salary
              ----------------------------------------------
              David B. Lee                   $ 75,000
              ----------------------------------------------
              Donita R. Koval                 264,180
              ----------------------------------------------
              Daniel L. Warfel                217,614
              ----------------------------------------------
              David N. Thiel                  129,162
              ----------------------------------------------
              JoAnn N. McMinn                 101,562
              ----------------------------------------------

Mr. Thiel and Ms. McMinn are at-will employees of the Company.
#### Michael Dura, Appellant, v. Walker, Hart & Co., Incorporated, Respondent.

Order, entered October 28, 1968, unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to provide that the plaintiff shall have 20 days from entry of order hereon to serve an amended complaint, and the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs and disbursements. There is a failure to state the *“*material elements ” of plaintiff’s cause of action in that the allegations of the complaint are insufficient to properly plead an agreement with respect to the finder’s fee allegedly received by the defendant. (See CPLR 3013; cf. *Foley*v. *D’Agostino,*21 A D 2d 60; *Shapolsky*v. *Shapolsky,*22 A D 2d 91; *Flamingo Telefilm Sales*v. *United Artists Corp.,*22 A D 2d 778; *Menon*v. *Kennedy,*24 A D 2d 849.) In this connection, the allegations of the complaint are but *“*vaguely stated ” (see *Shapolsky*v. *Shapolsky, supra,*p. 92) and, in accordance with the suggestions made on the argument, it is concluded that, in the interests of justice, the plaintiff should serve an amended complaint. We do not reach the question of the application and effect of the 'Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law, § 5-701, subd. 10) on the agreement which the plaintiff may eventually plead. (Concur—Eager, J. P., MeGivem, Markewich, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.
#### Levi S. Stockwell, Appellant, *v.*St. Louis Mercantile Company, Respondent.

June 1, 1880.

A transfer of stock not entered on the books of the corporation is not binding on the corporation.

Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Boyle, J.

*Affirmed.*

S. M. Smith, for the appellant.

William S. Hills, for the respondent.

Lewis, P. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The controlling question in this cause is, whether a transfer of stock in a corporation, not entered on the books of the company in accordance with its by-laws, is binding on the corporation, either with or without notice *aliunde*of the transfer? The court below, in sustaining the defendant’s demurrer to the evidence, held that such a transfer was invalid as against the corporation. The ruling was right, and judgment must be affirmed. Wag. Stats. 289, sect. 1; *White*v. *Salisbury,*33 Mo. 150; *Fine*v. *Hornsby,*2 Mo. App. 61; *A. Wight Co.*v. *Steinkemeyer,*6 Mo. App. 574.

All the judges concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000796502
<NAME> WESTERBEKE CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-28-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-28-1995
<CASH>                                       1,322,200
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,541,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                    60,500
<INVENTORY>                                  4,313,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,627,400
<PP&E>                                       4,384,800
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,789,900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,998,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,719,100
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,600
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,090,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,998,600
<SALES>                                     18,794,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,794,200
<CGS>                                       14,502,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,502,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,193,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,142,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   444,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            697,600
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   697,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>