alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 on Form 10-K of FairPoint Communications, Inc. (the "Company") for the
year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eugene B. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



/s/ EUGENE B. JOHNSONEugene B. Johnson Chief Executive Officer


March 5,
2009

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
#### ANDREW POWELL v. JOHN ANDERSON.

*Gwillim & Meyers; James F. Horan.*

Motion for leave to appeal to the court of appeals.

See opinion rendered June 3, 1889.
[S. F. No. 1003.

Department One.

February 27, 1900.]

#### J. N. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. H. B. GASTON et al., Respondents.

Foreclosure of Mortgage—Mechanics’ Liens—Attorneys’ Fees upon Appeal—Jurisdiction of Superior Court.—Upon appeal from a judgment in an action to foreclose a mortgage, rendered in favor of certain defendants directing tbe payment of mechanics’ liens claimed by them out of the proceeds of sale prior to the payment of plaintiff’s mortgage, the appellate court will not pass upon the question of the allowance of attorney’s fees for defending against the appeal by the plaintiff, but application for any further proper allowance for reasonable attorney’s fees in the supreme court, under section 1195 of the Code of Civil Procedure, must be made to the superior court, which has jurisdiction to determine that question.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County. E. B. Ogden, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

*642William H. Chapman, for Appellant.

W. H. O’Brien, for H. B. Gaston and Lucia E. Gaston, Respondents.

C. L. Colvin, for Pacific Lumber Company, Respondent.

F. W. Sawyer, for James Dayton, Respondent.

J. B. Richardson, and L. D. Manning, for J. L. Barker, Respondent.

C. T. Johns, for Al. Wood and Charles IT. Wood, Respondents.

THE COURT.

In an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage, judgment was rendered in favor of certain defendants for the amount of certain mechanics’ liens claimed by them* and directing their payment out of the proceeds of the sale prior to the payment of the plaintiff’s mortgage. At the hearing of the appeal'the appellant consented to an affirmance of the judgment, and thereupon one of the respondents asked that he be allowed an attorney’s fee for defending against the appeal.

In *Schallert-Ganahl etc. Co. v.*Neal, 94 Cal. 192, it was held that the provision of section 1195 of the Code of .Civil Procedure, authorizing the court to allow “reasonable attorneys’ fees in the superior and supreme courts” is addressed to the superior court, and that that court has the power to allow to the successful party such fee for services in this court. In the present case, that court did make an allowance to each of the respondents for “attorneys’ fees” without indicating that it intended to limit such allowance for services in the superior court. If, for any reason, a further allowance is proper, application therefor should be made to that court, where the propriety of the allowance, as well as the amount to be allowed, can be more readily determined.

.The judgment is affirmed.
#### HUNTER v SPARKS, Treas.

Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Montgomery Co.

No 828.

Decided Oct 2, 1928

MicMahon, Corwin, Landis & Markham, Dayton, for Hunter.

Ralph E Hosket, Pros Atty and Rolla E Galloway, Asst Pros Atty, both of Dayton, for Sparks.

BY THE COURT

The commissioners proceeded upon the theory that the Hi-Pointe Investment *165Company was the owner of the lots. The individual holders of a contract to purchase who did not record their contracts or take open and notorious possession of the lot, would in our judgment, not be in a position after the improvement had been let and the work done thereon to make a claim that they were not parties to the suit or seek an ’injunction against any of the proceedings.

The Board of Commissioners acted upon the legal title and had no notice of an equitable title in the plaintiffs, besides there were publications of notice of the improvement, and it would not be unreasonable to hold that the parties having an equitable interest should be chargeable with a notice so published. Even if these equitable owners were not actually made parties they were bound to take notice of any order affecting the property in which they had an equitable interest and would be bound to take such steps as the statue provides to protect their interests, and if they failed to do so, they would be barred.

The answer of the Commissioners filed in this case denies that there was any assessment made against the plaintiff, and this averment must, under the record, be taken as. true. Consequently the plaintiff would only be granted relief, if at all. under the contract as between her and that company.

It therefore follows that the judgment of tiffs court must be in favor of the defendants.

Ferneding, Kunkle and Allread, JJ. concur.
# EUR-Lex - 31998R1728 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998R1728

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1728/98 of 4 August 1998 fixing the definitive aid for lemons for the 1997/98 marketing year **

*
Official Journal L 217 , 05/08/1998 P. 0003 - 0003 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1728/98 of 4 August 1998 fixing the definitive aid for lemons for the 1997/98 marketing year

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 of 28 October 1996 introducing a Community aid scheme for producers of certain citrus fruits (1), and in particular Article 6 thereof,

Whereas Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 establishes a processing threshold of 444 000 tonnes for lemons; whereas Article 5(2) of that Regulation provides that, for each marketing year, overrunning of the processing thresholds is to be assessed on the basis of the average quantity processed with benefit of the aid during the last three marketing years, including the current marketing year; whereas Article 5(3) of that Regulation provides that where an overrun has been established, the aid fixed for the current marketing year in the Annex to that Regulation is to be reduced by 1 % per 4 440 tonnes of the overrun;

Whereas, pursuant to Article 22(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1169/97 of 26 June 1997 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 introducing a Community aid scheme for producers of certain citrus fruits (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1145/98 (3), the Member States have notified the Commission of the quantities of lemons delivered for processing in respect of the 1997/98 marketing year under Regulation (EC) No 2202/96; whereas, on the basis of those figures and of the quantities processed with benefit of the aid in the 1995/96 and 1996/97 marketing years, an overrun in the processing threshold has been established for 160 991 tonnes; whereas the aid for lemons fixed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 for the 1997/98 marketing year should accordingly be reduced by 36 %;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fruit and Vegetables,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 1997/98 marketing year, the aid for lemons fixed in the tables in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 shall be reduced by 36 %.

When the aid is paid, account shall be taken of advances paid in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1169/97.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 4 August 1998.

For the Commission

Monika WULF-MATHIES

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 297, 21. 11. 1996, p. 49.

(2) OJ L 169, 27. 6. 1997, p. 15.

(3) OJ L 159, 3. 6. 1998, p. 29.
§ 1470.6 Additions and exceptions. ( a ) For classes of grants and grantees subject to this part, Federal agencies may not impose additional administrative requirements except in codified regulations published in the Federal Register.
( b ) Exceptions for classes of grants or grantees may be authorized only by OMB.
( c ) Exceptions on a case-by-case basis and for subgrantees may be authorized by the affected Federal agencies.
§ 1911.12 Emergency standards. ( a ) ( 1 ) Whenever an emergency standard is published pursuant to section 6(c) of the Act, the Assistant Secretary must commence a proceeding under section 6(b) of the Act, and the standard as published must serve as a proposed rule. Any notice of proposed rulemaking shall also give notice of any appropriate subsidiary proposals.
( 2 ) An emergency standard promulgated pursuant to section 6(c) of the Act shall be considered issued at the time when the standard is officially filed in the Office of the Federal Register. The time of official filing in the Office of the Federal Register is established for the purpose of determining the prematurity, timeliness, or lateness of petitions for judicial review.
( b ) If the Assistant Secretary wishes to consult an advisory committee on any of the proposals as permitted by section 7(b) of the Act, he shall afford interested persons an opportunity to inspect and copy any recommendations of the advisory committee within a reasonable time before the commencement of any informal hearing which may be held under this part, or before the termination of the period for the submission of written comments whenever an informal hearing is not initially noticed under § 1910.11(b)(4) of this chapter.
( c ) Section 6(c) requires that any standard must be promulgated following the rulemaking proceeding within 6 months after the publication of the emergency standard. Because of the shortness of this period, the conduct of the proceeding shall be expedited to the extent practicable.
[37 FR 8664, Apr. 29, 1972, as amended at 42 FR 65166, Dec. 30, 1977]
§ 16.302 Answer to application. ( a ) Within 30 days after service of an application, counsel representing the agency against which an award is sought may file an answer to the application. Unless agency counsel requests an extension of time for filing or files a statement of intent to negotiate under paragraph (b) of this section, failure to file an answer within the 30 day period may be treated as a consent to the award requested.
( b ) If agency counsel and the applicant believe that the issues in the fee application can be settled, they may jointly file a statement of their intent to negotiate a settlement. The filing of this statement shall extend the time for filing an answer for an additional 30 days, and further extensions may be granted by the adjudicative officer upon request by agency counsel and the applicant.
( c ) The answer shall explain in detail any objections to the award requested and identify the facts relied on in support of agency counsel's position. If the answer is based on any alleged facts not already in the record of the proceeding, agency counsel shall include with the answer either supporting affidavits or a request for further proceedings under § 16.304.
#### GIBBONEY et v PHILLIPPI et

Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Montgomery Co

No 847.

Decided January 7, 1929

FERNEDING, PJ.

There is considerable evidence in the record in respect to the defendant’s alleged misrepresentation of her three properties. It appears, however, that the plaintiff first took up the matter of the exchange of her Darke County property with Mr. Williams, a real estate man connected with the real estate firm of The Copp Company. The conversation between Mr. Williams and the plaintiff was followed by conversations with Mrs. Phillippi, and in the course of these negotiations we think th,e plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Gibboney, had a reasonable opportunity to inspect the three properties which were afterwards conveyed to her and also to examine and find out as to the condition of said property and the rentals they were bringing. This was followed by a trip to the Darke County property by Mrs. Phillippi and Mrs. Gibboney.

It appears that in the transaction, two of the deeds from Mrs. Phillippi to the plaintiff were not witnessed. This was through an oversight and not by reason of any fraud. When the defect was discovered, the defendant offered to re-execute the deeds in proper form. So far as this failure is concerned, we are of opinion that it forms no basis for relief.

It is true that since the sale, the building and loan company has instituted proceedings and sold the property owned by defendant, the same being purchased by the building and loan company. This purchase was and is held, as stated by counsel, for the benefit of defendant.

Upon a careful consideration of the entire evidence, we have reached the conclusion that there was no actual misrepresentation of the defendant’s property to the plaintiffs and that plaintiffs had ample opportunity to investigate and learn about said properties before the same were exchanged. This being a case in equity, the plaintiff is bound to make out her case by clear and convincing testimony in order to secure the equitable relief. In our judgment, she has failed to make out such cáse. Judge Snediker decided the case in the Court of Common Pleas in a lengthy opinion which .we think is applicable to the case presented here.

We are therefore of opinion that the petition in the present case must be dismissed.
§ 1695.2 Guidance requirements. ( a ) Each guidance document shall comply with all relevant statutes and regulations.
( b ) It shall be written in plain and understandable English and avoid using mandatory language, such as “shall,” “must,” “required,” or “requirement,” unless the language describes an established statutory or regulatory requirement or is addressed to EEOC staff and will not foreclose the Commission's consideration of positions advanced by affected private parties;
( c ) It shall identify or include: ( 1 ) The term “guidance” or its functional equivalent and that the Commission is issuing the document;
( 2 ) A unique identifier that provides information on whether the document was subject to a vote (CV) or not (NVTA), the year of issuance, and unique number of its issuance and, if applicable, a Z-RIN;
( 3 ) The activity or entities to which the guidance applies;
( 4 ) A short summary of the subject matter covered in the guidance document at the top of the document.
( 5 ) A statement noting whether the guidance is intended to revise or replace any previously issued guidance and, if so, sufficient information to identify the previously issued guidance; and
( 6 ) Citations to applicable statutes and regulations;
( 7 ) ( i ) A clear and prominent statement of the following: “The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or Commission policies.”
( ii ) When binding guidance is authorized by law or is incorporated into contract, the language in paragraph (c)(7)(i) of this section may be modified to reflect either of those facts.
( d ) If the guidance document sets forth the Commission's position on a legal principle for the first time or changes the Commission's legal position on any issue, the Commission must approve the guidance document by majority vote. Any significant guidance or guidance that is otherwise subject to notice and comment procedures must be approved by a Commission vote. Any guidance document that requires a vote of the Commission to be approved shall be circulated to the Commissioners, and, if approved, shall be signed by the Chair on behalf of the Commission. If the document is not setting forth a new or changed legal position, is reiterating already established Commission policies, or is otherwise simply providing technical assistance on the laws the Commission enforces without announcing any new policy or legal position, it shall be circulated to the Commission for informational purposes for a period of not less than five days, unless emergency circumstances do not allow, and shall only require approval, but not signature, by the Chair.
#### § 1902.14 Formal hearing.

Any formal hearing provided for under § 1902.11 (e) and (f) shall be commenced upon the publication of reasonable notice in the Federal Register and similar notice by the State. The hearing shall conform with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. The terms for filing proposed findings and conclusions and exceptions to any tentative decision, or objections to a tentative decision, shall be set forth in the notice.
Rlante 


~oran 

"/ , J ~ 

March 19,2010 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

.~ -- -United StalesITepaftmenrOfTi1Uisportafion 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

On behalf ofPlante & Moran, PLLC, I am writing to express our strong support for the 

application ofDelta Air Lines for new nonstop service between Detroit and Haneda. 

Approval ofDelta's new service would be a major benefit for our region, where many 

corporations have strong trade and market presence with Japan. There are almost 250 Japanese 

companies located in Indiana and hundreds more whose business activities rely on access to 

Japan and its market. The growth ofour business ties with Japan has created demand for 

increased capacity to Tokyo. Indiana corporate representatives look to the convenience offlying 

into Tokyo's downtown Haneda airport. 

Indianapolis does not offer international service to Asia, and many ofour business 

travelers use Detroit as their hub when flying to Japan. Detroit is a proven and successful 

gateway to Asia and is an airport that can support trans-pacific routes. This summer Delta is 

adding new service to Seoul and Hong Kong, fulfilling the commitment Delta made to DTW to 

make itthe airline's gateway to Asia. The addition offIaneaa as a destination'is a naturarfiifhat~-· 

would clearly benefit our region. 

Thank you for consideration ofthis request. 

Sincerely, 

llWdw;it- / 

Matthew Kelly 'I 

Plante & Moran, PLLC 

Illinois Chicago' Elgin Michigan Ann Arbor' Auburn Hills' Detroit • East Lansing 

Flint. Grand Rapids' Kalamazoo ~ Macomb' St. Joseph· Southfield· Traverse City 

Ohio Cleveland • Columbus' Toledo China Shanghai Mexico Monterrey plantemoran.com
§ 1404.18 Procedures for requesting expedited panels. ( a ) With the exception of the specific changes noted in this Subpart, all FMCS rules and regulations governing its arbitration services shall apply to Expedited Arbitration.
( b ) Upon receipt of a joint Request for Arbitration Panel (Form R-43) indicating that both parties desire expedited services, OA will refer a panel of arbitrators which shall be valid for up to 30 days. Only one panel will be submitted per case. If the parties are unable to mutually agree upon an arbitrator or if prioritized selections are not received from both parties within 30 days, OA will make a direct appointment of an arbitrator not on the original panel.
( c ) If the parties mutually select an arbitrator, but the arbitrator is not available, the parties may select a second name from the same panel or OA will make a direct appointment of another arbitrator not listed on the original panel.
Exhibit 24



               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  registration
statement of Rymer  Foods Inc. on  Form S-8 (File  No. 33-79346) and  on
Form S-2 (File No. 33-86062) of our report which includes an explanatory
paragraph regarding the uncertainty of the Company's ability to continue
as a  going  concern dated  December  16, 1996,  on  our audits  of  the
consolidated financial statements  and financial  statement schedule  of
Rymer Foods Inc. and subsidiaries as of October 26, 1996 and October 28,
1995 and for each  of the three  years in the  period ended October  26,
1996, which report is included on page 14 in this Annual Report on  Form
10-K.




                                   /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
                                     
Chicago, Illinois                  COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
January 24, 1997











Page 36
Appendix E 

Detailed Sendout Pipeline Route Maps 
0.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

1

2

3 5 4

6

Figure EDowneast LNG Project

Detailed Sendout Pipeline Route

1

Legend

Mile Post

Pipeline Right-of-Way

QUAD SHEET LOCATION

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles

P:\Downeast-3253\Team Information\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Sendout_Pipeline_Reroute_Figures_082608\FigureE.mxd
9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

1

2

3 5 4

6

Figure EDowneast LNG Project

Detailed Sendout Pipeline Route

2

Legend

Mile Post

Pipeline Right-of-Way

QUAD SHEET LOCATION

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles

P:\Downeast-3253\Team Information\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Sendout_Pipeline_Reroute_Figures_082608\FigureE.mxd
9.0

15.0

14.0

13.0

12.0

11.0

10.0

1

2

3 5 4

6

Figure EDowneast LNG Project

Detailed Sendout Pipeline Route

3

Legend

Mile Post

Pipeline Right-of-Way

QUAD SHEET LOCATION

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles

P:\Downeast-3253\Team Information\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Sendout_Pipeline_Reroute_Figures_082608\FigureE.mxd
20.0

19.0

18.0

17.0

16.0

15.0

14.0

1

2

3 5 4

6

Figure EDowneast LNG Project

Detailed Sendout Pipeline Route

4

Legend

Mile Post

Pipeline Right-of-Way

QUAD SHEET LOCATION

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles

P:\Downeast-3253\Team Information\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Sendout_Pipeline_Reroute_Figures_082608\FigureE.mxd
23.0

22.0

21.0

1

2

3 5 4

6

Figure EDowneast LNG Project

Detailed Sendout Pipeline Route

5

Legend

Mile Post

Pipeline Right-of-Way

QUAD SHEET LOCATION

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles

P:\Downeast-3253\Team Information\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Sendout_Pipeline_Reroute_Figures_082608\FigureE.mxd
29.0

28.0

27.0

26.0

25.0

24.0

1

2

3 5 4

6

Figure EDowneast LNG Project

Detailed Sendout Pipeline Route

6

Legend

Mile Post

Pipeline Right-of-Way

QUAD SHEET LOCATION

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles

P:\Downeast-3253\Team Information\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Sendout_Pipeline_Reroute_Figures_082608\FigureE.mxd
PLAN VIEW

SWEENEY ROAD
PLAN VIEW
PLAN VIEW

PLAN VIEW

SHA

TTU

CK

R

OA

D
PLAN VIEW


PLAN VIEW
PLAN VIEW

PLAN VIEW
PLAN VIEW
PLAN VIEW

ST. CROIX RIVER

US ROUTE 1

HONEY STREET

CENTER STREET

DETAIL A

ST. CROIX RIVER
PLAN VIEW

US ROUTE 1 ROUTE

9

BROOK STREET
PLAN VIEW

US ROUTE 1
PLAN VIEW

US ROUTE 1

GRAND FALLS ROAD
PLAN VIEW

CCC ROAD

GRAND FALLS ROAD
PLAN VIEW

CCC ROAD

CCC ROAD
BAILEYVILLE

COMPRESSOR

STATION

PLAN VIEW

CCC ROAD

CCC ROAD