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

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

** **

In connection with the Amendment No. 2 to EMRISE Corporation’s (the “Company”)Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009(the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify in their capacities as ChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.             theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 
| Dated: April 15, 2010 | By:    | /s/ CARMINE T. OLIVA                                   |
|----------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |   | Carmine T. Oliva                                       |
|                       |   | Chief Executive Officer (principal executive  officer) |
|                       |   |
|                       |   |                                                   |
| Dated: April 15, 2010 | By:    | /s/ D. JOHN DONOVAN                                    |
|                       |   | D. John Donovan                                        |
|                       |   | Chief Financial Officer (principal financial  officer) |

 

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

 

----
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Lewellyn N. Burton

*Lewellyn N. Burton,*pro se, on the motion.

Submitted June 27

decided July 16, 1969

The motion by the defendant for a writ of mandamus and a disclosure of the progress of his appeal from the Superior Court in New London County is dismissed.
39364.

#### BLAIR v. THE STATE.

Decided April 27, 1962.

*841
      *Robert*Carpenter, *A. Tate Conyers,*for plaintiff in error.

*Richard Bell, Solicitor-General, Dennis F. Jones, Assistant Solicitor-General,*contra.

Franiojm, Judge.

*Code*§ 26-2811, under which the defendant was indicted, provides: “Any person who has been entrusted by another with any cotton or other produce, or any goods, animal, or other article of value, for the purpose of selling the same and paying the proceeds of such sale to the owner or other person so entrusting or delivering the article, who shall fraudulently convert the same, or any part thereof, or the proceeds of any part thereof, to his own use, or shall otherwise dispose of the same to the injury and without the consent of the owner or other person so entrusting or delivering it, and without paying to such owner or person the full value or market price thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment and labor in the penitentiary for not less than one year nor more than five years.”

The weight and credit to be given the testimony of the witnesses and the defendant’s statement were matters exclusively for the jury. The fact that the witness, Virginia Ann Atkins, was closely associated with the defendant and that she intended to marry the defendant, and that she knew little or nothing about the purchase and subsequent sale of the 1960 Ford automobile, were facts and circumstances for the consideration of the jury. The rule is well stated in *Haverty Furniture Co. v. Calhoun,*15 Ga. App. 620, 621 (84 SE 138): “It has never been held, and never can be held, that it is not within the power of a jury, after considering testimony of a particular witness, to disbelieve it, either from his appearance or his demeanor or manner upon the stand, or from the inherent nature of the facts testified to by him, although it be uncontradicted.”

The jury was authorized to conclude from the evidence and the defendant’s statement that the automobile entrusted to the defendant was delivered to him in DeKalb County for the purpose of selling and delivering same to Virginia Ann Atkins, and that the defendant formed the intent in DeKalb County to convert it to his own use. The defendant’s contention that *842venue was not proved is without merit. See *Heughan v. State,*82 Ga. App. 640 (3) (61 SE2d 685); *McCranie v. State,*51 Ga. App. 192 (179 SE 826). The jury was also authorized to conclude that the sales transaction by the defendant to Virginia Ann Atkins was the result of a pretext, scheme, and device whereby the defendant obtained possession of the automobile described in the indictment for his own use and benefit, and that upon receiving possession of the automobile, he did fraudulently convert it to his own use to the injury and without the consent of the owner and without paying to the owner the full market price thereof.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
Exhibit 13.1

Annual Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the SOx Act of 2002

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Santander UK Group Holdings plc (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 31 December 2017 (the Form 20-F) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: 7 March, 2018 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Nathan Bostock     
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Nathan Bostock         
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  |  | 
|Dated: 7 March, 2018 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Antonio Roman      
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Antonio Roman          
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
 

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.25

            [LETTERHEAD OF THE PRODUCERS ENTERTAINMENT GROUP LTD.]




October 4, 1996

Mr. Arthur Bernstein
8228 Fountain Avenue #3
Los Angeles, CA  90046

                    Re:  Amendment to Employment Agreement
                         ---------------------------------

Dear Mr. Bernstein:

     The parties hereby amend that certain employment agreement
dated June 22, 1992, as amended on August 15, 1994, March 7, 1995, 
and January 25, 1996, to provide the following:

     (1)  The Term of this Agreement shall be and is extended
          through June 30, 1998.

     (2)  The salary for the period, September 30, 1996 through
          June 30, 1997, shall be paid at an annual rate of
          $160,000 in accordance with the Company's standard
          payroll practice.

     (3)  The salary for the period July 1, 1997-June 30, 1998,
          shall be paid at the annual rate of $175,000, in 
          accordance with the Company's standard payroll practice.

     (4)  During the extended Term of the Agreement, the Company
          shall pay Employee an automobile reimbursement of $1,000 
          per month.

     (5)  For each of the Company's fiscal years ending June 30,
          1997, and June 30, 1998, the Company shall pay Employee
          a performance bonus of $25,000, if the Company earns an
          amount at least equal to $1,000,000 of pre-tax profit.

<PAGE>
 
Mr. Arthur Bernstein
October 4, 1996
Page 2
 

     All other Terms and conditions shall remain in full force and
effect unless and until modified in writing and signed by the
parties.

     If the aforementioned is agreed and accepted, please
acknowledge same by executing as indicated below.


Sincerely,
THE PRODUCERS ENTERTAINMENT
GROUP LTD.



By:     /s/ Irwin Meyer
        ------------------------------
        Irwin Meyer
        President/CEO

ACCEPTED AND AGREED:



/s/ Arthur Bernstein
------------------------------
Arthur Bernstein
Número Identificador

RES2024________________

ESTADO LIBRE ASOCIADO DE PUERTO RICO

TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES

PANEL IX

JULIANA DEL TORO 

VARGAS

Peticionaria

SOUTH WEST HEALTH 

CORPORATION H/N/C 

HOSPITAL METRO Y 

OTROS

Recurridos

KLCE202400016

Certiorari 

procedente del 

Tribunal de 

Primera Instancia, 

Sala Superior de 

Mayagüez 

Caso Núm.:

MZ2023CV00438 

(SALÓN 307)

Sobre:

Despido 

Injustificado (Ley 

Núm. 80) y otros

Panel integrado por su presidente, el Juez Rodríguez 

Casillas, el Juez Salgado Schwarz y el Juez Ronda Del 

Toro.

Salgado Schwarz, Carlos G., Juez Ponente.

RESOLUCIÓN

En San Juan, Puerto Rico, a 11 enero de 2024.

Comparece ante nos la Sra. Juliana Del Toro Vargas 

(señora Del Toro Vargas o Peticionaria) y solicita que 

revoquemos una Orden emitida por el Tribunal de Primera 

Instancia, Sala Superior de Mayagüez (TPI o foro 

primario) el 28 de diciembre de 2023, notificada el 29 

de diciembre. Mediante el referido dictamen, el TPI 

ordenó lo siguiente:

Se ordena a la Parte Querellante prestar 

fianza de no residente por la cantidad de 

dos mil dólares ($2,000.00) de conformidad 

con la Regla 69.5 de Procedimiento Civil, 

en un término de 60 días.

Una vez prestada la fianza no residente 

continuarán los procedimientos.

Se apercibe a la parte que incumplir con 

la orden del Tribunal conllevará la 

desestimación del pleito.

Luego de deliberar los méritos del recurso ante 

nos, entendemos procedente no intervenir con la decisión 
KLCE202400016 2

recurrida. Si bien este foro apelativo no está obligado 

a fundamentar su determinación al denegar la expedición 

de un recurso discrecional,1 abundamos sobre las bases 

de nuestra decisión para que las partes no alberguen 

dudas en sus mentes sobre el ejercicio de nuestra 

facultad revisora y su justificación jurídica. 

Conforme a lo anterior, expresamos que no surge del 

expediente de este caso que el TPI actuase mediando 

prejuicio, parcialidad, error manifiesto o mediante 

craso abuso de su discreción.2 Tampoco divisamos 

fundamentos jurídicos que motiven la expedición del auto 

instado al amparo de los criterios dispuestos por la 

Regla 40 del Reglamento de este Tribunal de Apelaciones.3

Basado en lo anterior, denegamos la expedición del 

auto de certiorari ante nuestra consideración.

Notifíquese

Lo acuerda y manda el Tribunal, y lo certifica la 

Secretaria del Tribunal de Apelaciones.

Lcda. Lilia M. Oquendo Solís 

 Secretaria del Tribunal de Apelaciones

1 32 LPRA Ap. V, R. 52.1.

2 Trans-Oceanic Life Ins. v. Oracle Corp., 184 DPR 689, 709 (2012).

3 4 LPRA Ap. XXII-B, R. 40.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-1568[1].txt
From: Rick Counihan <RCounihan@enernoc.com> To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
Cc: Rick Counihan <RCounihan@enernoc.com> Date: 01/14/2013 07:28 AM Subject: RE: reporting cost

Hi Melanie,

This accurately characterizes our conversation.

Rick Counihan – Vice President Government Affairs EnerNOC, Inc. | 717 Kennebec Ave. | Takoma Park MD 20912

415.517.1861
rcounihan@enernoc.com www.enernoc.com EnerNOC - get more from energy

From: King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 7:43 PM
To: Rick Counihan Subject: reporting cost

Hi Rick, Does this accurately describe our discussion yesterday regarding the burden of reporting information on the dates and times of operation for emergency demand response?

In the first year of implementation, you estimate a burden of approximately 1/2 of

an FTE at a cost of $60,000. In subsequent years, you estimate a burden of approximately 1/8

of an FTE per year at a cost of $15,000 per year.

Regarding the total number of CSPs, a listing on PJM's website shows about 70 companies, and there may be about 30 more operating outside PJM. Not all are active and not all
have stationary engines in their portfolio. You are not sure of the number of active CSPs

nationwide with engines, but think about 70 might be a good estimate.

These numbers are just a quick, back of the envelope, estimate provided to EPA on
short notice, and are not exact.

Melanie King Energy Strategies Group Sector Policies and Programs Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code D243-01 RTP, NC 27711 Phone: (919) 541-2469 Fax: (919) 541-5450 king.melanie@epa.gov

This email and any information disclosed in connection herewith, whether written or oral, is the property of EnerNOC, Inc. and is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. This email may contain Page 1EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-1568[1].txt information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Distributing or copying any information contained in this email to anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.

Page 2
UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT F O R T H E D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA

____________________________________ ) MI KEI SHA BLACKMAN, et a l., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) C iv il Act io n No . 9 7-1 62 9 (P L F) v. ) Consolidated with ) Ci vi l A cti on No. 97 -24 02 (P L F) DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA, et al., ) ) Def endants. ) ____________________________________)
ORDER For the re asons stated in the sepa rate Opinion issued this same day , it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs’ pe tition for attorney s’ fe es [2155] is gr anted in par t
and de nie d in pa rt ; it is FURTHE R ORDERED that the parties submit a joint proposed orde r to the Court identifying the specific amount of attorne y s’ fe es, costs and e x penses that de fenda nts are r equire d to pay to plaintiffs’ class c ounsel consistent with the conc lusions in t he ac company ing O pinion. I n o rd e r t o d o s o, pla int if

fs ’ c la ss c ouns e l sh a ll p re pa re a dr a ft or de r i de nti fy

ingthe sp e c if

ic
amou nt o f atto rn e y s’ fe e s, c os ts a nd e xpe ns e s d

ue to t he m and su bmi t th e dr a ft

to d e fe nd ants ’
c ouns e l f or re vie w. No mor e tha

n f ourt e e n d ay s a ft e r t

he pla int if

fs su bmi t th e dr a ft

or de r t o defe nse counse l, the parties sha ll submi t a joint proposed orde r to the Court.

SO ORDERED. /s/___________________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN Un i t edS t at es Di s t ri ct J u d ge DATE: January

4, 2010
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 178 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 178

 Informing the House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is 
                               assembled.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 25, 1994

    Mr. Mitchell (for himself and Mr. Dole) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Informing the House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is 
                               assembled.

    Resolved, That the Secretary inform the House of Representatives 
that a quorum of the Senate is assembled and that the Senate is ready 
to proceed to business.

                                 <all>
```
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 38

Making minority party appointments to the Select Committee on Ethics.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 26 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Mr. COCHRAN (for Mr. DOLE) submitted the following resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Making minority party appointments to the Select Committee

on Ethics.

1 Resolved, The following shall constitute minority

2 membership of the Select Committee on Ethics for the

3 One Hundred Third Congress or until their successors are

4 named: Mitch McConnell (Vice Chairman), Ted Stevens

5 (vice, Trent Lott), and Bob Smith (vice, Slade Gorton).

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT TIMOTHY L. WATTS, Respondent

v.
MANHEIM TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 191 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER
PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 12th day of September, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED

. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:
(1) Does the Public School Code of 1949 require the Man heim Township School District to provide transportation services to a re sident pupil to and from more than one location within the school district? (2) Did the Commonwealth Court err in interpreting In re Residence Hearing Before Bd. of Sch. Dir., Cumberland Valley Sch. Dist. , 744 A.2d 1272 (Pa. 2000), to mean that a child can have more than one re sidence for school purposes, including transportation services under Section 1 361 of the Public School Code of 1949? M.D. Appeal Dkt. 112 2014
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02

- 24

- 00129

- CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

271st District Court of Wise County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV21

- 07

- 480

Before Wallach, Kerr, and Birdwell, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### I N RE 

### HLF I NTERESTS



### , LLC; H OLLY 

### F ORSYTHE 

### ; H OLLY 

### F ORSYTHE 

### 2018

M ANAGEMENT 

### T RUST 

### ; H OLLY 

### L EWIS 

### F ORSYTHE 

### GST E XEMPT 

### T RUST

AND 

### GST N ON



### - E XEMPT 

### T RUST 

### ; W HISKY 

### R IVER 

### O IL 

### & G AS



### , LLC;

F ORSYTHE 

### C OMPANY 

### GP, LLC; T HE 

### S ARAH 

### B ARBARA 

### F ORSYTHE 

### F AMILY



### T RUST 

### ; AND 

### T RUST 

### A, QTIP, AND 

### T RUST 

### B UNDER THE 

### 2015 F ORSYTHE



### M ANAGEMENT 

### T RUST 

### , Relator s2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered relator s’ petit ion fo r writ of mandamus and

emergency motion for temporary relief

, real parties in interest ’ s response, the record,

and re lators ’ reply and is of the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly,

relator s’ petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion for temporary relief

are denied.

Per Curiam

Delivered : April 1 2 , 2024
§ 1.45U-3 Rules relating to the increased credit amount for prevailing wage. ( a ) *In general.* If a qualified nuclear power facility satisfies the prevailing wage requirements of section 45(b)(7) and § 1.45-7 for any alteration or repair with respect to such qualified nuclear power facility within the meaning of section 45U(b)(1), and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of § 1.45-12, then the amount of the zero-emission nuclear power production credit for the taxable year is equal to the credit amount determined under section 45U(a) multiplied by five.
( b ) *Qualifying Project Labor Agreement for a qualified nuclear power facility.* For the purposes of section 45U and § 1.45-7(c)(6)(ii), in order to be a Qualifying Project Labor Agreement, such agreement must, at a minimum: ( 1 ) Be a collective bargaining agreement with one or more labor organizations (as defined in 29 U.S.C. 152(5)) of which employees of the qualified nuclear power facility are members and such agreement establishes the terms and conditions of employment at the qualified nuclear power facility;
( 2 ) Contain guarantees against strikes, lockouts, and similar job disruptions;
( 3 ) Set forth effective, prompt, and mutually binding procedures for resolving labor disputes arising during the term of the collective bargaining agreement; and
( 4 ) Contain provisions to pay wages at rates not less than the prevailing rates in accordance with subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40 of the United States Code.
( c ) *Applicability date.* This section applies to alterations and repairs of qualified nuclear power facilities that are performed after June 25, 2024, for taxable years beginning after June 25, 2024. Taxpayers may apply this section to alterations and repairs of qualified nuclear power facilities that are performed prior to June 25, 2024 provided that taxpayers follow this section in its entirety and in a consistent manner.
[T.D. 9998, 89 FR 53271, June 25, 2024; T.D. 9998, 89 FR 66562, Aug. 16, 2024]
# C_2016118EN.01002502.xml

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 February 2016 — FCC Aqualia v OHIM — Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona (AQUALOGY)

(Case T-402/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark AQUALOGY - Earlier Community word mark AQUALIA and earlier national figurative mark aqualia - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 118/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: FCC Aqualia, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. de Oliveira Vaz Miranda de Sousa, N. González-Alberto Rodríguez and C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Grau Mora, C. Viola Zendrera and A. Torrente Tomás, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2014 (Case R 1209/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, SA and FCC Aqualia, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders FCC Aqualia to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders FCC Aqualia to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 37736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18042]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,917]


BonaKemi USA, Incorporated, Monroe, NC; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on May 14, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed by a company official on behalf of workers of BonaKemi USA, 
Incorporated, Monroe, North Carolina.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Therefore, the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 6th day of July 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-18042 Filed 7-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P