alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Annual Report of Morton Industrial Group,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, William D. Morton, Chairman, ChiefExecutive Officer and President of the Company, and I, Daryl R.Lindemann, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.     /s/ William D. Morton       William D. Morton     Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and PresidentMarch 24, 2005     /s/ Daryl R. Lindemann       Chief Financial Officer and SecretaryMarch 24, 2005     This certification accompanies the Report pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shallnot, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Adam Gibbins

, * From the County Court

of Eastland County,

Trial Court No. 12

- 456

.

Vs. No. 11

- 13

- 00202

- CR * July 30, 2015

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C. J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and McCall. )

(Bailey J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this

court ’ s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1338

SHAWNTA D. ROYSTER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General; MARY KEARNEY, Postmaster; CARL W. STARLPIER, Supervisor , Defendants

– Appellees , and JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General; STEPHEN SCHENNING, Acting U.S. Attorney , Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. George L. Russell, III , District Judge. ( 1:17

- cv
- 02495

- GLR )

Submitted : June 20, 2019 Decided: June 24, 2019

Before NIEMEYER , AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Vacated an d remanded by un published per curiam opinion

.
Shawnta D. Royster , Appellant Pro Se.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Shawnta Royster, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint setting forth her factual allegations. She then filed an “amended complaint,” explaining that she wa s doing so to correct the statement of jurisdiction in the initial complaint, as well as a misspelling of one of the defendants’ names. The amended complaint was incomplete on its face, consisting solely of the amended jurisdictional statement and Royster ’s prefatory note; it did not include any factual allegations. In granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the district court declined to consider the factual allegations in the initial complaint, reasoning that it had been superseded by the amended co mplaint. The record on a motion to dismiss includes not only the complaint itself, but also documents “expressly incorporated into the complaint by reference,” as well as other documents “integral” to the complaint whose authenticity is not in dispute. Goines v.
V

alley Cmty. Servs. Bd. , 822 F.3d 159, 166 (4th Cir. 2016). And it is fundamental that pro se complaints must be construed liberally. Williamson v. Stirling , 912 F.3d 154, 170 (4th Cir. 2018). Here, the stated purpose of the amended complaint was to corr ect certain errors and omissions in the initial complaint; it clearly was not meant to stand alone. The district court therefore should have construed it to incorporate by reference the factual allegations in the initial complaint. Accordingly, we grant Royster’s motion to appeal in forma pauperis , vacate the district court’s dismissal order, and remand so that the district court can consider, in the first instance, whether the facts alleged state a claim for relief. We dispense with oral argument becaus e the facts and legal contentions are adequately4 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. VACATED AND REMANDED
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1388]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of Citizen Advocacy Panel, Brooklyn District

AGENCY:  Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  An open meeting of the Brooklyn District Citizen Advocacy 
Panel will be held in Brooklyn, New York.

DATES:  The meeting will be held Friday February 25, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Eileen Cain at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-
488-3555.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an operational meeting of the Citizen Advocacy Panel will be held 
Friday, February 25, 2000, 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Internal 
Revenue Service Brooklyn Building located at 625 Fulton Street, NY 
11201.
    For more information or to confirm attendance, notification of 
intent to attend the meeting must be made with Eileen Cain. Mrs. Cain 
can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3555.
    The public is invited to make oral comments from 6:00 p.m. to 6:30 
p.m. on Friday, February 25, 2000.
    Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. If you would like 
to have the CAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-
1227 or 718-488-3555, or write Eileen Cain, CAP Office, P.O. Box R, 
Brooklyn, NY 11201. The Agenda will include the following: various IRS 
issues. Note: Last minute changes to the agenda are possible and could 
prevent effective advance notice.

    Dated: January 7, 2000.
Cathy VanHorn,
Chief, CAP & Communications.
[FR Doc. 00-1388 Filed 1-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLIING CODE 4830-01-P
January 24, 2011

Robert A. Bernicchi Managing Director of Engineering

Alaska Airlines

19300 International Blvd. Seattle, WA 98188

Dear Mr. Berncchi:

This letter is to inform you that we have received and begun processing your petition for exemption. It acknowledges receipt of the petition and describes how we will process it.

We Have the Petition

We’ve received your December 23, 2010, petition on behalf of Alaska Airlines (Alaska) for an exemption from § 121.344(f) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This exemption, if granted, would allow Alaska the continued operations of Alaska’s B737-890 series aircraft for 12 months from December 6, 2010 without complying with 14 CFR § 121.344(f) and part 121 Appendix M (footnote 18) parameter accuracy for both pitch control surface position and rudder control input force. The following aircraft are affected:

Make/Model Serial # Line # Variable # Registration # Delivery Date

737-890 35201 3511 YL135 N533AS Jan. 21, 2011

737-890 35202 3523 YL136 N534AS Jan. 24, 2011

737-890 35200 3558 YL137 N535AS Feb. 21-25, 2011

We’ve added your petition to the public docket (No. FAA-2011-0002) and we are processing it. We will contact you if we need additional information.

How We’ll Process the Petition

A petition for an exem ption, according to 14 CFR 11.63(d), must be sent to the FAA at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. In addition, we publish a summary of the petition in the Federal Register for public comment unless, according to 14 CFR 11.87, we determine that good cause exists for not publishing it.2

We will advise you of the agency's final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you have any questions in the meantime, you may contact me at (202) 267-4059.

Sincerely,

/s/

Frances Shaver Program Analyst Aircraft and Airport Rules Division
79–008 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 111–57 

WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT 

TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE 

COMMITTEE ON RULES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

MARCH 26, 2009.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Ms. MATSUI, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 289] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 289, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a twothirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from 

the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions reported from the 

Rules Committee. The rule applies the waiver to any resolution reported through the legislative day of March 30, 2009, providing for 

consideration or disposition of the bill (H.R. 1388) to reauthorize 

and reform the national service laws, an amendment thereto, or a 

conference report thereon. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 51033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21009]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreement Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit 
comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime 
Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this 
notice appears in the Federal Register. A copy of the agreement is 
available through the Commission's Web site (http://www.fmc.gov) or by 
contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#97e3e5f6f3f2f6f9f6fbeee4fee4d7f1faf4b9f0f8e1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="255157444140444b44495c564c56654348460b424a53">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Agreement No.: 011962-007.
    Title: Consolidated Chassis Management Pool Agreement.
    Parties: The Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association and its 
member lines; the Association's subsidiary Consolidated Chassis 
Management LLC and its affiliates; Chicago Ohio Valley Consolidated 
Chassis Pool LLC; China Shipping Container Lines Co., Ltd.; Companhia 
Libra de Navegacao; Compania Libra de Navegacion Uruguay; Matson 
Navigation Co.; Mediterranean Shipping Co., S.A.; Midwest Consolidated 
Chassis Pool LLC; Norasia Container Lines Limited; Westwood Shipping 
Lines; and Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd.
    Filing Party: Jeffrey F. Lawrence, Esq.; Cozen O'Conner; 1627 I 
Street, NW., Suite 1100; Washington, DC 20006-4007.
    Synopsis: The amendment provides authority for the corporate 
restructuring of Consolidated Chassis Management and its affiliated 
chassis pools, including authority to form separate business entities 
to facilitate the purpose of the Agreement; allows for increased 
participation in the pools regarding chassis carrying international 
shipping containers by non-ocean carrier entities, including shippers, 
inland carriers, and chassis leasing companies; provides limited 
authority for chassis leasing companies and inland carriers to 
participate in pool governances; and authorizes pools formed under the 
Agreement, upon the approval of a pool's governing body, to interchange 
chassis directly with non-contributing inland carriers, shippers and 
others and to develop terms of use and charges for such interchanged 
chassis.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
    Dated: August 12, 2011.
Karen V. Gregory,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-21009 Filed 8-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 5/8/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

SONNY LAUREN HARMON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. STEVE HARGETT,

Respondent-Appellee. No. 95-6463 (W. Dist. of Oklahoma) (D.C. No. CIV-95-429-C)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

BeforeANDERSON , BARRETT , MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. 34.1.9. This case is therefore submitted without oral argument.1 We grant the issuance of a certificate of probable cause to reach the merits in this

case. 2 Petitioner, a state prison inmate, appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner sought habeas relief on the grounds that 1) his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated by the trial court’s restriction of his attorney’s cross-examination of the State’s witnesses; 2) his right to a speedy trial was violated when the State was permitted to amend its Information and the case was remanded for a preliminary hearing; 3) his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the trial court’s failure to sustain his motion to suppress evidence obtained during an inventory search of his vehicle; 4) the trial court erred by admitting fingerprint evidence for which no proper foundation was laid; and 5) that the prior conviction used to enhance his punishment was too remote to be used to enhance his sentence. The district court denied the petition and this appeal followed. 1 Having carefully considered the record on appeal, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the magistrate’s Report and Recommendation dated November 15, 1995. The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is hereby AFFIRMED

. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge
ex_10-c.htm


Exhibit 10(c)


 


AMENDMENT TO 2011 RESTRICTED SHARE UNIT AGREEMENT







THIS AMENDMENT TO 2011 RESTRICTED SHARE UNIT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made as of this 10th day of February 2012, between Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Ara Hovnanian (the “Participant” and, together with the Company, the “Parties”).







RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, the Parties entered into a Restricted Share Unit (“RSU”) Agreement which relates to the Participant’s June 10, 2011 RSU award (the “Agreement”); and







WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement to include certain performance conditions.







NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and representations contained herein, the Parties hereto agree the Agreement is amended as follows:







1.  The following shall replace Section 2(a) of the Agreement in its entirety:







The Participant will become vested in the RSUs in installments on the later of (i) the dates set forth on the vesting schedule set forth above or (ii) the date upon which the “Performance Condition” (as defined below) is achieved, subject to Section 2(c) of this Agreement.  For purposes of this Agreement, the “Performance Condition” shall mean the Committee’s determination prior to the tenth anniversary of the Date of Grant that the Company’s Adjusted EBITDA for two consecutive fiscal years exceeds the Company’s actual EBITDA for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2011.  As used herein, “EBITDA” shall mean the Company's consolidated earnings before interest expense, income taxes, depreciation and amortization, including inventory impairment losses and land option write-offs and gains or losses on extinguishment of debt, determined in a manner consistent with the Company's normal practices for quarterly press release financial reporting purposes.  “Adjusted EBITDA” shall mean the Company's consolidated earnings before interest expense, income taxes, depreciation and amortization, excluding inventory impairment losses and land option write-offs and gains or losses on extinguishment of debt, determined in a manner consistent with the Company's normal practices for quarterly press release financial reporting purposes.







2.  Sections 2(c) and 2(e) of the Agreement are hereby amended to remove the references therein to special treatment of the RSUs upon “Retirement”.  Accordingly, in the event of the Participant’s Retirement at any time, any then outstanding unvested RSUs granted pursuant to this Agreement shall immediately terminate for no further consideration.







Except as expressly stated otherwise in this Amendment, capitalized terms used and not defined have the same meanings defined in the Agreement, and all provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.


 

 


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES, INC.







 




 


PARTICIPANT
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 30, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
135157 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 135157 COA: 280450 Wayne CC: 04-003180-01 DONALD LEE WHITE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 3, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

l0123 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 30, 2008

Clerk
(77 South. 1003)

#### JEFFERSON FERTILIZER CO. v. GREEN.

(7 Div. 498.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Jan. 17, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; Hugh D. Merrill, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NO VEMBER 1 7 , 2016

NO. 03
- 16
- 00015
- CV

Fifteen
- Thousand One
- Hundred Ninety
- Six Dollars and Forty
- One Cents in United States Currency, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

APP EAL FROM THE 391ST DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERTON, AND FIELD REVERSED AND REMANDED
-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the jud gment signed by the tr i a l court on October 7, 2015 . Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the court’s judgment

. Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s judgment and remands the

c ase to the trial court for further proceedings

. A ppellee shall pay all costs related to this appeal , both in this Court and in the court below

.
###### Editorial Note on Subpart A of Part 5

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subpart A of part 5 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 5.17 [Reserved]
EXHIBIT 32



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 AmSouth Bancorporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2004 (the
Report), I, C. Dowd Ritter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Beth E. Mooney, Chief Financial 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 to our knowledge:



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



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



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                        |  | 
|/s/    C. Dowd Ritter   |  |  |  | /s/    Beth E. Mooney  
|                        |  |  |  |                        
|C. Dowd Ritter          |  |  |  | Beth E. Mooney         
|Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer



May
3, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,
or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to AmSouth Bancorporation and will be
retained by AmSouth Bancorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Gencor Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|                                    
|/s/ E.J. Elliott                    
|E.J. Elliott                        
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|                                    
|December 12, 2008                   



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ Scott W. Runkel    
|Scott W. Runkel        
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|December 12, 2008