alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of Chief Executive OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer ofTransMontaigne Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), herebycertifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:

(a)          the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof the Company for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2005, filed onthe date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(b)         theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|        | /s/ DONALD H.  ANDERSON   |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | Donald H. Anderson        |
|   | *Chief Executive Officer* |
|   | February 9, 2006     |

 

----
#### § 58.325 Anhydrous milkfat.

If cream is used in the production of anhydrous milkfat that is eligible for official certification, the anhydrous milkfat shall be made by a continuous separation process directly from milk or cream. The cream used shall be comparable to the flavor quality specified above for U.S. Grade AA or U.S. Grade A butter. The milkfat from cream may then be further concentrated into oil. The cream or oil shall be pasteurized in accordance with the procedures for cream for buttermaking (§ 58.334a). If butter is used in the production of anhydrous milkfat that is eligible for official certification, the butter used shall conform to the flavor requirements of U.S. Grade AA or U.S. Grade A butter and shall have been manufactured in an approved plant. The appearance of anhydrous milkfat should be fairly smooth and uniform in consistency.

[60 FR 4826, Jan. 24, 1995]
25.302 Contractors performing private

security functions outside the United States.

25.302-1 Scope.

25.302-2 Definitions.

25.302-3 Applicability.

25.302-4 Policy.

25.302-5 Remedies.

25.302-6 Contract clause.

Parent topic: Subpart 25.3 - Contracts Performed Outside the United States
ACCEPTED

03-17-00862-CV

21559495

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

1/2/2018 3:48 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/2/2018 3:48:01 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
52.216-20 Definite Quantity.       As prescribed in 16.506(c), insert the following clause:          Definite Quantity (Oct 1995)                                       (a) 						            This is a definite-quantity, indefinite-delivery contract for the supplies or services specified, and effective for the period stated, in the Schedule.                                          (b) 						            The Government shall order the quantity of supplies or services specified in the Schedule, and the Contractor shall furnish them when ordered. Delivery or performance shall be at locations designated in orders issued in accordance with the Ordering clause and the Schedule.                                          (c) 						            Except for any limitations on quantities in the Order Limitations clause or in the Schedule, there is no limit on the number of orders that may be issued. The Government may issue orders requiring delivery to multiple destinations or performance at multiple locations.                                          (d) 						            Any order issued during the effective period of this contract and not completed within that time shall be completed by the Contractor within the time specified in the order. The contract shall govern the Contractor’s and Government’s rights and obligations with respect to that order to the same extent as if the order were completed during the contract’s effective period; provided, that the Contractor shall not be required to make any deliveries under this contract after ________________ [*insert date*].                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.216 [Reserved]
#### § 51.2002 Split shell.

*Split shell* means a shell having any crack which is open and conspicuous for a distance of more than one-fourth the circumference of the shell, measured in the direction of the crack.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

March 5, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-11272

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-60104 CV-DMM

DOROTHY S. BOSTED,

a.k.a. Dorothy Irene Osbourne,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CELANESE AMERICAS CORPORATION 

RETIREMENT MEDICAL PLAN,

Defendant-appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(March 5, 2008)

Before ANDERSON and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and TRAGER*, District

Judge.

________________

*Honorable David G. Trager, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New

York, sitting by designation.
The paragraph following the heading: “When Coverage Ends,” does not indicate that the 1

four circumstances there listed are the exclusive circumstances which would end coverage. For

example, it is obvious that the plan does not intend continued coverage for a previously covered

employee who lost long-term disability benefits because of a discovery that the employee had

embezzled from the company, notwithstanding the fact that that circumstance does not

comfortably fit within any of the four listed circumstances that would end coverage. Moreover,

as indicated in the text, the unreasonable inference relied upon by plaintiff is belied by other

language in the 2001 plan. 

2

PER CURIAM:

After oral argument, and careful consideration, we conclude that the

judgment of the district court is due to be affirmed. We agree with the district

court that plaintiff was not entitled to benefits under the medical plan assuming the

2005 plan governed. We note that plaintiff does not on appeal challenge the

district court’s interpretation of the 2005 plan. Because we conclude that

plaintiff’s claims are due to be rejected even if the 2001 plan were applicable, we

need not decide which plan should govern. Under the 2001 plan, a former

employee was “eligible to participate in this Plan if you are receiving long-term

disability payments through the company’s disability plan.” We reject plaintiff’s

strained argument that, once coverage commenced under the foregoing language,

the former employee would be entitled to open-ended medical coverage for all

time, notwithstanding the fact that the employee was no longer eligible for longterm disability benefits. Such an unreasonable interpretation is not indicated by

any language in the 2001 plan. To the contrary, the plaintiff’s interpretation is 1
We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s 2

claim for statutory penalties.

3

belied by the provision quoted above, namely that a former employee may be

eligible to participate if she is receiving long-term disability payments. In other

words, a former employee is eligible for medical coverage only if she is (present

tense) receiving long-term disability payments. 

Because judgment was appropriate for the company under the language of

either plan, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.2
FLIGHT NOTIFICATION/RELEASE

FLIGHT DATE: 01/01/15 FLIGHT TIME: 10:00am

LOCATION ADDRESS: 1234 Long Dr, Acton CA 91234

TYPE: PHOTO | VIDEO | BOTH

PERSON REQUESTING FLIGHT: John Smith

ROLE: Real Estate Agent with Joes Realty

SIGNATURE: __________________________________ DATE: ______________

NEIGHBORHOOD

ADDRESS: LOCATION TO FLIGHT SITE:

OWNER: ____________________________________________

SIGNATURE: __________________________________ DATE: ______________

ADDRESS: LOCATION TO FLIGHT SITE:

OWNER: ____________________________________________

SIGNATURE: __________________________________ DATE: ______________

ADDRESS: LOCATION TO FLIGHT SITE:

OWNER: ____________________________________________

SIGNATURE: __________________________________ DATE: ______________

ADDRESS: LOCATION TO FLIGHT SITE:

OWNER: ____________________________________________

SIGNATURE: __________________________________ DATE: ______________
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 27, 2019

No. 04-18-00396-CV

TEXAS ARMORING CORPORATION,

Appellant

v.

Tinyan OKUNBO,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-18380

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. The costs 

of this appeal are taxed against the appellant.

It is so ORDERED on March 27, 2019.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of March, 2019.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Zane Acquisition I, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven
      Bettinger, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      ss.
      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 results of operations of the Company.


/s/
              Steven BettingerSteven
              BettingerPrincipal
                Executive Officer
              Principal
                Financial Officer
              March
                27, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PICTURETEL'S
BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 28, 1997 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-Q FILING
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          52,959
<SECURITIES>                                    29,513
<RECEIVABLES>                                  115,849
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,079
<INVENTORY>                                     53,908
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               262,603
<PP&E>                                         146,621
<DEPRECIATION>                                  77,998
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 367,846
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           95,614
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           380
<OTHER-SE>                                     249,673
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   250,053
<SALES>                                        349,590
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               349,590
<CGS>                                          196,342
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  196,342
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,098
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (27,621)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (8,017)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (19,604)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (19,604)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.52)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Alfred Tomasello, Respondent.

Order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated November 5, 1965, which dismissed an indictment charging the defendant with two counts of perjury in the first degree and directed that he be discharged and his bail be exonerated (see 48 Mise 2d 156) affirmed. No opinion. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur; with a separate memorandum by Hopkins, J., in which Benjamin, J., concurs: I concur only because I consider that I am bound by the statements by the Court of Appeals in effect adopting the reasoning of Mr. Justice McLaughlin in *People*v. *Gillette*(126 App. Div. 665) which held that a prospective defendant required to testify before a Grand Jury by subpoena may not be convicted for perjury committed in his testimony since the oath could not be legally administered to him (see *People*v. *De Feo,*308 N. Y. 595, 598, 603; *People*v. *Laino,*10 N Y 2d 161, 171). Though the statements may not have been strictly necessary for the decisions, the force with which they were declared and their importance in the internal logic of the opinions lead me to reluctant concurrence (cf. *Matter of Fay,*291 N. Y. 198, 215; *Gimbel Bros.*v. *White,*256 App. Div. 439, 442). It is clear from an analysis of *Gillette*that the reasoning of Mr. Justice McLaughlin was in fact a minority view. *Gillette*had indeed three grounds for reversal of the conviction. First, Mr. Justice McLaughlin urged that perjury could not be committed where the oath could not be legally administered to one compelled to testify; secondly, he found that the indictment was defective; and thirdly, he held that the evidence was insufficient to convict. However, the majority of the court agreed with him on the second and third grounds only (cf. *People*v. *Reiss,*255 App. Div. 509, affd. 280 N. Y. 539). Hence, *Gillette*standing alone, is not authority for the proposition that perjury cannot be committed before a Grand Jury by a witness under compulsion. If I were free to exercise a choice, I would prefer the Federal rule which limits the constitutional immunity to the past and recognizes no license to commit perjury *(Glickstein*v. *United States,*222 U. S. 139, 141; *United States*v. *Winter,*348 F. 2d 204, 208; *United States*v. *Parker,*244 F. 2d 943, 947, cert. den. 355 U. S. 836; *Kromick*v. *United States,*343 F. 2d 436, 441). Not only is the Federal rule sustained by the inherent sense of immunity as relating to an act already done, but it is also supported by strong reasons of public policy (1) that a witness ought to be deterred from telling untruths and (2) that the investigation of criminal activity should not be impeded by the deliberate concealment or the deceit of one who is immunized from prosecution. Thus, the Federal rule has the virtue of enforcing the individual immunity arising out of the constitutional protection, while at the *563same time observing the fair demand of society that the truth at least is the prerogative of the Grand Jury. For the reasons stated, however, I concur.
§ 58.57 Product not eligible for packaging with official identification. ( a ) When a lot of inspected or graded product shows unsatisfactory keeping quality, other lots from the same manufacturing plant shall not be packaged with official identification. Packaging with official identification may be resumed only when it is determined that product from such plant possesses satisfactory keeping quality.
( b ) Any manufacturing or processing plant supplying product, directly or indirectly, for packaging with official identification shall be surveyed and approved for inspection or grading service.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the annual
report on Form 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY>                    Canadian dollars

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            AUG-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                              1.5722
<CASH>                                    1,001,115
<SECURITIES>                              2,042,333
<RECEIVABLES>                             2,721,184
<ALLOWANCES>                                 53,000
<INVENTORY>                                 308,088
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          6,597,149
<PP&E>                                    8,189,622
<DEPRECIATION>                            2,404,006
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           16,047,907
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     2,523,314
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                  10,917
<COMMON>                                    162,484
<OTHER-SE>                               10,859,777
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             16,047,907
<SALES>                                  14,771,972
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         14,771,972
<CGS>                                     5,515,241
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             5,515,241
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          6,591,941
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             43,123
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          137,942
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           1,147,378
<INCOME-TAX>                                419,084
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         618,065
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                618,065
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.22
                               


</TABLE>
Page
      Twenty Three





Exhibit
32.2





Statement of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350








In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, as the chief financial officer
of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





2)           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

















/s/ R. Alan
      MillerR.
      Alan MillerChief
      Financial OfficerMay
      13, 2008
46.312 Construction contracts.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.246-12, Inspection of Construction, in

solicitations and contracts for construction when a fixed-price contract is contemplated and the

contract amount is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. The contracting officer

may insert the clause in such solicitations and contracts when the contract amount is expected to be

at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, and its use is in the Government’s interest.

Parent topic: Subpart 46.3 - Contract Clauses
52.227-6 Royalty Information.

As prescribed in 27.202-5(a)(1), insert the following provision:

Royalty Information (Apr 1984)

(a) Cost or charges for royalties. When the response to this solicitation contains costs or charges for

royalties totaling more than $250, the following information shall be included in the response

relating to each separate item of royalty or license fee:

(1) Name and address of licensor.

(2) Date of license agreement.

(3) Patent numbers, patent application serial numbers, or other basis on which the royalty is

payable.

(4) Brief description, including any part or model numbers of each contract item or component on

which the royalty is payable.

(5) Percentage or dollar rate of royalty per unit.

(6) Unit price of contract item.

(7) Number of units.

(8) Total dollar amount of royalties.

(b) Copies of current licenses. In addition, if specifically requested by the Contracting Officer before

execution of the contract, the offeror shall furnish a copy of the current license agreement and an

identification of applicable claims of specific patents.

(End of Provision)

Alternate I (Apr 1984). As prescribed in 27.202-5 (a)(2), substitute the following for the introductory

portion of paragraph (a) of the basic provision:

When the response to this solicitation covers charges for special construction or special assembly

that contain costs or charges for royalties totaling more than $250, the following information shall

be included in the response relating to each separate item of royalty or license fee:

Parent topic: 52.227 [Reserved]
[872 NE2d 868, 840 NYS2d 755]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joshua Liner, Appellant.

Argued June 6, 2007;

decided July 2, 2007

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Legal Aid Society,*New York City *(Natalie Rea*and *Steven Banks*of counsel), for appellant.

*Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney,*New York City *(Gary S. Snitow*and *David M. Cohn*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of the crimes of burglary in the third degree, petit larceny, and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree for stealing merchandise at a Duane Reade store. At trial, the People introduced into evidence two trespass notices revoking defendant’s privilege to enter Duane Reade stores. Because defendant failed to assert at the time of the trial that the admission of the notices violated his right of confrontation, the issue is not *857preserved for our review *(see generally People v*Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.