alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1



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 OF 2002



I, Mark E.
Woodward, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of SERENA Software, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2003 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of SERENA
Software, Inc.



By:

/s/    Mark E. WoodwardMark E. Woodward President and Chief Executive Officer And Director




Date: June 13, 2003



I, Robert I. Pender, Jr., certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of SERENA Software, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of SERENA Software, Inc.



By:

/s/    Robert I. Pender, Jr.Robert I. Pender, Jr. Vice President, Finance And Administration, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial And Accounting Officer) And
Director




Date: June 13, 2003
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-31317

Summary Calendar

GEORGE W. STEMLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

MARTIN MARIETTA MANNED SPACE SYSTEMS,

Defendant,

MARTIN MARIETTA CORP., erroneously sued as

Martin Marietta Manned Space Systems,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

September 19, 1996

Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

George W. Stemley sued his employer, Martin Marietta

Corporation, for illegal discrimination on the basis of race under

Title VII and for age discrimination under the ADEA. Stemley was

discharged in June 1992 as part of a company-wide reduction in
2

force which Martin Marietta undertook because of reduction in its

business from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

As part of this reduction in force process, Martin Marietta used a

process for ranking all of its employees. Stemley ranked only 105

of 106 employees on the Technical Operations Department integrated

ranking list for labor grade 45. These ranking lists were used as

a tool in selecting individual employees for layoff. In addition

to these rankings, the ability of each individual to perform the

work which was anticipated to be available after the NASA

reductions took affect were considered in choosing individuals to

be laid off. Prior to trial, the district court granted a partial

summary judgment in favor of Martin Marietta on Stemley’s claims of

race discrimination and the case went to trial before a jury on

Stemley’s claims of age discrimination. At the conclusion of

plaintiff’s evidence, the district court granted judgment as a

matter of law in favor of Martin Marietta on the age discrimination

claims. Stemley moved for a new trial which was denied and timely

appealed.

We have carefully considered the briefs, the record excerpts

and the record itself. We agree with the district court that there

was insufficient evidence of either race or age discrimination to

support a jury verdict on Stemley’s claims. We affirm the final

judgment entered by the district court in favor of Martin Marietta.

AFFIRMED.
NUMBER 13-20-00365-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

 

SALLY MARI BURNS, 

CHARLES EDWARD BURNS, AND 

JENNIFER LEE BURNS BIELA, Appellants,

 v.

CYNTHIA ANN BURNS MILIAN, 

TED M. BURNS, III, AND 

MARY MARGARET BURNS KLEMENT, Appellees.

On appeal from the 105th District Court

of Kenedy County, Texas.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Silva

Order Per Curiam

The case is before the Court on appellees’ unopposed fourth motion for extension 

of time to file appellees’ brief. The motion indicates the purpose of the extension is to 
2

allow the parties to continue settlement negotiations and to finalize settlement 

documents.

The motion to extend time to file a brief is CARRIED and this appeal is ordered 

ABATED until March 8, 2021. The Court directs appellants and appellees to file, on or 

before March 8, 2021, either (1) a joint motion to reinstate the appeal, or (2) a joint motion 

to dismiss the appeal pursuant to a settlement.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on this

the 2nd day of February, 2021.
#### Commonwealth *versus*John P. Jordan.

*Sept. 22d.*

*Sept. 23d.*

A person licensed as an innholder, common victualler, and retailer, under *St*1832, *c.*166, § 8, [Revised Stat. c. 47, § 21,] which provides, that the county commissioners may license persons “as innholders, common victuallers, or retailers oi sellers of wine, beer, ale, cider, or any other fermented liquor,” is not authorized, in virtue of his capacity of an innholder and retailer under such license, to sell spirituous liquors.

This was an indictment against the defendant for selling mixed spirituous liquor, to be drunk in his house in Williams-' town, against the provisions of *St.*1832, c. 166.

At the trial in the Court of Common Pleas, before *Strong*J., the defendant admitted that he sold the liquor as set forth in the indictment, but contended that he had a right so to do, by virtue of a license granted to him under *St.*1832, c. 166, the 8th section of which provides, that the county commissioners may license as many persons “ as they shall decide the public good shall require, as innholders, common victuallers, or re toilers or sellers of wine, beer, ale, cider, or any other fermented liquor, and no excise or fee shall be required therefor.”

The defendant was licensed as a taverner, innholder, common victualler and retailer of wine, &c., and by the order of the commissioners no fee was charged. The judge ruled, that he was not authorized by such license to sell spirituous liquors.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty ; and the defendant excepted to the ruling of the judge.

*Dwight*and Briggs, for the defendant.

*C. A. Dewey,*(District Attorney,) for the Commonwealth.

Shaw C. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court. The 8th section of the statute of 1832, provides for a new class of licensed houses, authorizing licensed persons to be innholders, with liberty to sell wine, beer, ale, and other fermented liquors ; such license does not make it lawful for such innholders to sell brandy, rum, or other spirituous liquors. The various provisions of the statute imposing penalties on innholders for suffering persons to drink to excess in their houses, and implying a right to sell spirituous liquors, are to be construed by the maxim *reddendo, singula*singulis, and to be confined to that class of innholders, licensed under the first section, who are *229authorized to sell rum, brandy, and other spirituous.liquors. In this way all the clauses of the statute will have their proper meaning and effect.

The license produced by the defendant is a license under the 8th section of the statute, and did not justify him in selling rum by retail.

*Exceptions overruled.*
| **Exhibit 32.1**
			     Harry Lee Waterfield II and Raymond L. Carr, being the			President and Chief Financial Officer and Vice President,			respectively, of Kentucky Investors, Inc., hereby certify as of this			15th day of March, 2007, that the Form 10-K for the Year ended			December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section			13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the			information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all			material respects, the financial condition and results of operations			of Kentucky Investors, Inc.   
**KENTUCKY INVESTORS, INC.**   
/s/ Harry Lee Waterfield II 
BY: Harry Lee Waterfield II
DATE: March 15, 2007
       President   
/s/ Raymond L. Carr 
BY: Raymond L. Carr
DATE: March 15, 2007
       Chief Financial Officer --Vice President
  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.79

                  AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT AND COMPLETE RELEASE

     WHEREAS, Dennis Upah (hereinafter "Upah") and drkoop.com, Inc.
("drkool.com") are parties to that certain Agreement and Complete Release under
Upah's employment with drkoop.com was terminated effective July 5, 2000
(referred to herein as the "Agreement and Complete Release");

     WHEREAS, the Agreement and Complete Release includes, as Exhibit G thereto,
a Consulting Agreement under which drkoop.com has retained Upah to temporarily
serve as its Acting Chief Operating Officer for a period of ninety (90) days
beyond July 5, 2000;

     WHEREAS, drkoop.com desires to accelerate termination of the Consulting
Agreement on mutually acceptable terms, and Upah is amenable to such accelerated
termination provided his severance benefits and other rights under the Agreement
and Complete Release are protected;

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements of the parties
expressed herein, Upah and drkoop.com agree as follows:

     1. The Consulting Agreement, and Upah's obligation thereunder to serve as
the Acting Chief Operating Officer of drkoop.com, is hereby terminated as of the
close of business on July 28, 2000. For a period of two weeks thereafter (the
"On-Call period"), through August 11, 2000, Upah will make himself reasonably
available to drkoop.com to answer questions by telephone or e-mail on an as-
needed basis, but shall not be required to be physically present in the offices
of drkoop.com or to otherwise make himself physically available for the
performance of services of drkoop.com

     2. In return for Upah making himself reasonably available to drkoop.com by
telephone or e-mail during the On-Call Period, drkoop.com will pay Upah
$1,346.50 per week, for a total of $2,693.00 for Upah's on-call services during
the two-week On-Call Period.

     3. Upah's services to drkoop.com during the On-Call Period shall be as an
independent contractor, and not as an employee of drkoop.com or any related
entity. Upon expiration of the On-Call Period, Upah shall have no further
obligation to provide services to drkoopcom, whether as an independent
contractor or otherwise.

     4. The Indemnification Agreement of February 24, 1999, by and between
drkoop.com and Upah shall continue in full force and effect during the term of
the On-Call Period.

     5. The Agreement and Complete Release, together with and as amended by this
instrument, constitute the entire agreement between the parties with respect to
the subject matter hereof, and supersede all other agreements between the
parties with respect to the subject matter hereof.

                         [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
<PAGE>

     INTENDING TO BE LEGALLY BOUND, the parties have affixed their signatures in
the spaces provided below on this 27 day of July, 2000.


drkoop.com, Inc.                                Dennis Upah



By:  /s/ Donald Hackett                         /s/ Dennis Upah
     ------------------                         ---------------
     Donald W. Hackett
     President and Chief Executive Officer
§ 89.520 Production requirements for remote identification broadcast modules. After April 21, 2021, no person may produce remote identification broadcast modules unless: ( a ) The remote identification broadcast module is designed and produced to meet the minimum performance requirements for remote identification broadcast modules established in § 89.320 in accordance with an FAA-accepted means of compliance; and
( b ) All of the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) *Inspection requirements for production of remote identification broadcast modules.* A person responsible for the production of remote identification broadcast modules must, upon request, allow the Administrator to inspect the person's facilities, technical data, and any remote identification broadcast modules the person produces, and to witness any tests necessary to determine compliance with this subpart.
( 2 ) *Audit requirements.* A person responsible for the production of remote identification broadcast modules must cause independent audits to be performed on a recurring basis, and additionally whenever the FAA provides notice of noncompliance or potential noncompliance, to demonstrate the remote identification broadcast modules listed under a declaration of compliance meet the requirements of this subpart. The person responsible for the production of remote identification broadcast modules must provide the results of all such audits to the FAA upon request.
( 3 ) *Product support and notification.* A person responsible for the production of remote identification broadcast modules must maintain product support and notification procedures to notify the public and the FAA of any defect or condition that causes the remote identification broadcast module to no longer meet the requirements of this subpart, within 15 calendar days of the date the person becomes aware of the defect or condition.
( 4 ) *Instructions.* A person responsible for the production of a remote identification broadcast module must make available instructions for installing and operating the remote identification broadcast module to any person operating an unmanned aircraft with the remote identification broadcast module.
[Amdt. No. 89-1, 86 FR 4505, Jan. 15, 2021; 86 FR 13630, Mar. 10, 2021]
§ 22.27 Computation of time. ( a ) In computing any period of time under this part or in an order issued thereunder, the time begins with the day following the act, event, or default, and includes the last day of the period, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday observed by the Federal government, in which event it includes the next business day.
( b ) When the period of time allowed is less than seven days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays observed by the Federal government shall be excluded from the computation.
( c ) Where a document has been served or issued by placing it in the mail, an additional five days will be added to the time permitted for any response.
§ 1986.108 Role of Federal agencies. ( a ) ( 1 ) The complainant and the respondent will be parties in every proceeding. In any case in which the respondent objects to the findings or the preliminary order, the Assistant Secretary ordinarily will be the prosecuting party. In any other cases, at the Assistant Secretary's discretion, the Assistant Secretary may participate as a party or participate as amicus curiae at any stage of the proceeding. This right to participate includes, but is not limited to, the right to petition for review of a decision of an ALJ, including a decision approving or rejecting a settlement agreement between the complainant and the respondent.
( 2 ) If the Assistant Secretary assumes the role of prosecuting party in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section, he or she may, upon written notice to the ALJ or the Administrative Review Board (ARB), as the case may be, and the other parties, withdraw as the prosecuting party in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. If the Assistant Secretary withdraws, the complainant will become the prosecuting party and the ALJ or the ARB, as the case may be, will issue appropriate orders to regulate the course of future proceedings.
( 3 ) Copies of documents in all cases shall be sent to all parties, or if they are represented by counsel, to the latter. In cases in which the Assistant Secretary is a party, copies of the documents shall be sent to the Regional Solicitor's Office representing the Assistant Secretary.
( b ) The U.S. Coast Guard, if interested in a proceeding, may participate as amicus curiae at any time in the proceeding, at its discretion. At the request of the U.S. Coast Guard, copies of all documents in a case must be sent to that agency, whether or not that agency is participating in the proceeding.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of --

Northrop Grumman Corporation 

Under Contract No. F A8810-09-C-OOO 1 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60735 

Stephen J. McBrady, Esq. 

Crowell & Moring LLP 

Washington, DC 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Carol L. Matsunaga, Esq. 

Senior Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Carson, CA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: June 26, 2018 

Administrative Judge 

Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60735, Appeal of Northrop Grumman 

Corporation, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREYD. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
#### Roy McCutcheon, Architect, P. C., et al., Appellants, v Kalmon Dolgin et al., Defendants, and Richard C. Agins et al., Respondents.

[697 NYS2d 532]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), dated February 10, 1999, as amended by an order of the same court, dated June 30, 1999, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Richard C. Agins and Irwin Siegel.

Ordered that the order, as amended, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Richard C. Agins and Irwin Siegel is denied.

There are material issues of fact as to whether the defendants Richard C. Agins and Irwin Siegel withdrew from the partnership before it entered into a construction contract with the plaintiffs *(see, e.g., Rudnitsky v Robbins,*191 AD2d 488; *cf., Palescandolo v Carini,*259 AD2d 742). Under these circumstances, that branch of the motion which sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Agins and Siegel should have been denied *(see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853). Santucci, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
§ 99.9 Radio requirements. ( a ) A person who operates a civil aircraft into an ADIZ must have a functioning two-way radio, and the pilot must maintain a continuous listening watch on the appropriate aeronautical facility's frequency.
( b ) No person may operate an aircraft into, within, or whose departure point is within an ADIZ unless— ( 1 ) The person files a DVFR flight plan containing the time and point of ADIZ penetration, and
( 2 ) The aircraft departs within five minutes of the estimated departure time contained in the flight plan.
( c ) If the pilot operating an aircraft under DVFR in an ADIZ cannot maintain two-way radio communications, the pilot may proceed, in accordance with original DVFR flight plan, or land as soon as practicable. The pilot must report the radio failure to an appropriate aeronautical facility as soon as possible.
( d ) If a pilot operating an aircraft under IFR in an ADIZ cannot maintain two-way radio communications, the pilot must proceed in accordance with § 91.185 of this chapter.
[Doc. No. FAA-2001-10693, 66 FR 49822, Sept. 28, 2001, as amended at 69 FR 16756, Mar. 30, 2004]
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Schools and staffing survey.Public school teachers questionnaire.**
 
1987-1988
1990-1991 | 1993-1994| 1999-2000
2003-2004 | 2007-2008
 
SuDoc Number:C 3.272:SASS-4 A/
Item Number:0146-M (online)
CGP systemNumber:000935523
 
March 27, 2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>

       
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>   1
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Dec-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                          Jan-02-1995
<PERIOD-END>                            Dec-31-1995
<CASH>                                      274,177
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                               575,250
<ALLOWANCES>                                560,626
<INVENTORY>                               2,042,880
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          3,270,134
<PP&E>                                    4,080,571
<DEPRECIATION>                            2,946,385
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            4,656,645
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     1,643,176
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                    613,472
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                2,399,997
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              4,656,645
<SALES>                                  15,374,665
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         15,916,449
<CGS>                                    10,634,364
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             6,578,423
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (1,824,095)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 67,358
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (1,756,737)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           1,385,153
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                               (371,584)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (0.85)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.85)
        

</TABLE>