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

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
Capital Solutions 1, Inc. pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of
2002

                            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 Amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of Capital
Solutions 1, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended May 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned Christopher Astrom, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of Capital Solutions 1, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
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.

Dated: September 21, 2006

                                      /s/ CHRISTOPHER ASTROM
                                      -----------------------
                                      Christopher Astrom
                                      Chief Executive Officer

                                      /s/ CHRISTOPHER ASTROM
                                      -----------------------
                                      Christopher Astrom
                                      Chief Financial Officer
#### CLAUDE HOLLAND et al., Respondents, v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY CO., Appellant.

Kansas City Court of Appeals,

April 29, 1912.

CARRIERS: Railroads: Shipment of Horses: Stock Pens: Gate Fastenings. Though a shipper agrees to load his horses onto defendant’s ears for shipment, yet he may rightfully expect that the stipck pens provided for shipments are reasonably secure. And if the gates thereto are without their original fastenings, being secured by discarded hay-hailing wire, so that the horses break through and escape, the railway company is liable for damages.

Appeal from Clinton Circuit *Court.*— Hon. *Alonzo D. Burnes,*Judge.

Aerirmed.

*Paul E. Walker*and *E. G. Hall*for appellant.

*Pross T. Gross*for respondents.

ELLISON, J.

Plaintiffs contracted for shipment of a carload of horses over defendant’s railway. In attempting to load them on the ears, they broke through the stock pens and ran away, receiving injury. They brought this action and recovered judgment in the circuit court.

*252It appears that plaintiffs had a verbal contract with defendant’s station agent for the shipment of the horses. According to the evidence of this agent, they were to he loaded by plaintiffs, bnt for loading purposes defendant had stock pens constructed and chutes leading therefrom to the cars standing thereat; and these horses were put into these pens at direction of the agent and with- his knowledge. The evidence tended to show that the horses became frightened in the pens while plaintiffs were endeavoring to load them, and pressed against an insecurely fastened gate, which gave way. and they ran through another division of the yards, to which there was another poorly fastened gate, which also flew open and the horses escaped over the adjacent country.

There was ample evidence showing these gates were old and the original fastenings gone, they being secured by discarded hay-baling wire. No evidence was' introduced by defendant.

The judgment was manifestly for the right party. Although plaintiffs were to load the horses, they had a right to expect that defendant’s facilities provided for such loading were reasonably secure. [Tracy v. Ry. Co., 80 Mo. App. 389; Cooke v. Ry. Co., 57 Mo. App. 471; Mason v. Ry. Co., 25 Mo. App. 473.]

The instructions were not objectionable. The criticism of No. 1 is critical in the extreme. And so of the one on the measure of damages. It stated' the correct rule. If defendant wished anything more specific, it should have asked it, though we think it complete as written-.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0356 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2011 - SW - 067 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
#### § 776.14 Elements of “production” coverage.

Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, as has been noted, cover not only employees who are engaged “in commerce” as explained above, but also “each” and “any” employee who is engaged in the “production” of “goods” for “commerce”. What employees are so engaged can be determined only by references to the very comprehensive definitions which Congress has supplied to make clear what is meant by “production”, by “goods,” and by “commerce” as those words are used in sections 6 and 7. In the light of these definitions, there are three interrelated elements of coverage to be considered in determining whether an employee is engaged in the production of goods for commerce: (a) There must be “production”; (b) such production must be of “goods”; (c) such production of goods must be “for commerce”; all within the meaning of the Act.[51] The three elements of “production” coverage are discussed in order in the sections following.

###### Footnotes -
  776.14

[51] These elements need not be considered if the employee would be covered in any event because engaged “in commerce” under the principles discussed in preceding sections of this part.
UTCBuilding&IndustrialSystemsOneCarrierPlaceFarmington,Connecticut06032U.S.A.JohnMandyckVicePresidentSustainability,Marketing&CommunicationsJuly2,2014Ms.MargaretSheppardU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyOfficeofAirandRadiationStratosphericProtectionDivision(6205J)1310LStreet,N.W.Washington,D.C.20005DearMs.Sheppard:UnitedTechnologiesBuilding&IndustrialSystemsThankyouforyourletterofMarch27,2014regardingCarrier'sSignificantNewAlternativesPolicy("SNAP")submissionfortheapprovalofcarbondioxide("C02")forRefrigeratedTransport,NewEquipment(includingmarinecontainers,trailers,trucksanddirectdriveapplications).ThisletterisintendedtorespondtoyourquestionsandprovidetheinformationnecessaryfortheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency("EPA")toproceedwithapproval.1.MagnitudeofRelease.Yourequestedthatweprovidesupportingdocumentationfordeterminingtheactivationtimeofthesafetyvalve.J1

# Valve [ 

# ]



# Trial 1 [ ]



# 1 Trial 

# 2 [ ]



# Trial 

# 3 [ ]

Trial 

# 1 [ ]



# 2 Trial 

# 2 [ ]



# Trial 

# 3 [ ]

Y ou additionally requested that we clarify where the refrigerant is released. [



# ]



# r ] we are providing a separate response with CBI redacted.

2Altogether,wearepleasedtocontinueworkingwiththeStratosphericOzoneDivisiononourapplicationforSNAPapproval.Ifneeded,wewouldbemorethanwillingatanytimetodiscussanymatterconcerningouroriginalsubmissionaswellastheinformationcontainedintheresponseandattachmentsbelow.cc:Mr.GeraldWozniakSincerely,JohnM.MandyckVicePresidentSustainability,MarketingandCommunicationsUTCBuilding&IndustrialSystemsU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyOfficeofAirandRadiationStratosphericProtectionDivision(6205J)1310LStreet,N.W.Washington,D.C.200053
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CCBT Financial
Companies, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 , as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer for the
Company, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.

      This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgated under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act"). In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32),
this certification (A) shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of
the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B)
shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the
Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company
specifically incorporates it by reference.


/s/ PHILLIP W. WONG, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Phillip W. Wong, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Date: November 7, 2003


                                       23
Filed 9/22/14 P. v. Yoo CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or 

ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 

purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SEJONG YOO,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B254008

 (Los Angeles County

 (Super. Ct. No. KA101945)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

Cynthia Ulfig, Judge. Affirmed as modified.

Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________
2

From inside his home, Nicanor Valdejueza saw Sejong Yoo enter the backyard 

and remove a screen from a patio window. Yoo was arrested and charged in an 

information with first degree burglary with a person present (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 462).

1

Yoo pleaded not guilty.

In the middle of trial, Yoo moved to suppress evidence of clothing seized by 

sheriff’s deputies from the trunk of his car (§ 1538.5). The court denied the motion. 

The jury acquitted Yoo of first degree burglary, but convicted him of the lesser 

included offense of attempted first degree burglary. The court sentenced Yoo to the 

upper term of three years, suspended execution of sentence and placed him on three years 

of formal probation. The court awarded Yoo presentence custody credit of 241 days. 

The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)(1) and imposed and stayed 

a probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44) and a parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45) in the 

same amount as well as other statutory fines, fees, and assessments. 

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Yoo on appeal. After examination of the 

record counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On May 15, 2014, 

we advised Yoo he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or 

issues he wished us to consider. We have received no response. 

We have examined the record and are satisfied Yoo’s appellate attorney has fully 

complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists. (Smith v. 

Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly

(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) However, 

the trial court erred in imposing and staying both a parole revocation and probation 

revocation fine. (See People v. Hunt (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 13.) 

 

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code. 
3

DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified to reverse the order imposing and staying a parole 

revocation fine. As modified the judgment is affirmed.

ZELON, J.

We concur:

WOODS, Acting P. J.

SEGAL, J.

 



Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
EXHIBIT 21


           SUBSIDIARIES OF MACDERMID, INCORPORATED

MacDermid's principal subsidiaries, primarily wholly-owned, are as follows:


                                                      State of
                                                    Incorporation


MacDermid Asia, Ltd.                                   Hong Kong
MacDermid Benelux BV                                   Holland
MacDermid Chemicals, Inc.                              Canada
MacDermid Equipment, Inc.                              Vermont
MacDermid Equipment GmbH                               Germany
MacDermid Espanola, S.A.                               Spain
MacDermid Europe, Incorporated                         Delaware
MacDermid France, S.A.                                 France
MacDermid G.B., Ltd.                                   United Kingdom
MacDermid GmbH                                         Germany
MacDermid Hong Kong, Ltd.                              Hong Kong
MacDermid Imaging Technology, Inc.                     Delaware
MacDermid Imaging Technology Belgium NV                Belgium
MacDermid Imaging Technology Europe BV                 Holland
MacDermid Italiana SRL                                 Italy
MacDermid Korea, Ltd.                                  Hong Kong
MacDermid New Zealand, Ltd.                            New Zealand
MacDermid Overseas, Asia, Incorporated                 Delaware
MacDermid S.A. (Pty.) Ltd.                             South Africa
MacDermid Singapore, Pte. Ltd.                         Singapore
MacDermid Suisse, S.A.                                 Switzerland
MacDermid Taiwan, Ltd.                                 Taiwan
Nippon MacDermid Co., Inc.                             Japan

In addition, the Corporation has several non operating subsidiaries 
which, in the aggregate, are not significant.
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 Quarterly  Report of Pick Ups Plus, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Merritt Jesson,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to my knowledge:

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

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

Dated:  August 13, 2004
                                                     /s/ Merritt Jesson
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Merritt Jesson
                                                     Chief Executive Officer


                                       16
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Pick-Ups Plus (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the Company.

Date: November 21, 2005             By:  /s/ Robert White
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                    Name:  Robert White
                                    Title: Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Pick-Ups Plus, Inc. and
will be retained by Pick-Ups Plus, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 778.222 Other payments similar to “call-back” pay. The principles discussed in § 778.221 are also applied with respect to certain types of extra payments which are similar to call-back pay. Payments are similar to call-back pay if they are extra payments, including payments made pursuant to state or local scheduling laws, to compensate an employee for working unanticipated or insufficiently scheduled hours or shifts. The extra payment, over and above the employee's earnings for the hours actually worked at his applicable rate (straight time or overtime, as the case may be), is considered as a payment that is not made for hours worked. Payments that are prearranged, however, may not be excluded from the regular rate. Examples of payments similar to excludable call-back pay include: ( a ) Extra payments made to employees for failure to give the employee sufficient notice to report for work on regular days of rest or during hours outside of his regular work schedule;
( b ) Extra payments made solely because the employee has been called back to work before the expiration of a specified number of hours between shifts or tours of duty, sometimes referred to as a “rest period;”
( c ) Pay mandated by state or local law for employees who are scheduled to work the end of one day's shift and the start of the next day's shift with fewer than the legally required number of hours between the shifts; and
( d ) “Predictability pay” mandated by state or local law for employees who do not receive requisite notice of a schedule change.
[84 FR 68775, Dec. 16, 2019]
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 Quarterly Report ofMaverick Minerals Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Robert Kinloch, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 21st day of November, 2005.



|                                                    | /s/ Robert Kinloch
|--------------------------------------------------- | ------------------
|Robert Kinloch                                     
|Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer





















---
Ex 10-2 Schmitz StephenG-2015-04-15






FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This is the first amendment to that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated as of April 19, 2013 (the “Agreement”), by and between Stephen G. Schmitz and American Residential Properties, Inc.  All capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Executive and the Company hereby agree to amend the Agreement solely as set forth as follows, and that the Agreement shall otherwise remain the same:


1.    The first sentence of Section 3.8 of the Agreement is hereby replaced in its entirety by the following sentence: 


Upon the occurrence of a “Change in Control” (as such term is defined in the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan as in effect as of the Effective Date), all Equity Compensation awarded to the Executive on or before December 31, 2014, to the extent not vested as of the date of the Change in Control or to the extent that any such award is subject to forfeiture restrictions as of the date of the Change in Control, shall, immediately prior to the effectiveness of the Change in Control, be deemed vested and all forfeiture restrictions shall lapse (treating any applicable performance criteria as fully satisfied).  The vesting upon a Change in Control of any Equity Compensation awarded to the Executive after December 31, 2014, shall be governed by the vesting agreement between the Company and the Executive relating to such Equity Compensation as approved by the Board or the Compensation Committee of the Board. 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed their names to this First Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement as of April 15, 2015.
	
				
	COMPANY:
	 
	EXECUTIVE:

	 
	 
	 
	 

	American Residential Properties, Inc.
	 
	Stephen G. Schmitz

	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ LAURIE A. HAWKES
	 
	/s/ STEPHEN G. SCHMITZ

	 
	 
	 
	 

	Name:
	Laurie A. Hawkes
	 
	 

	Title:
	President