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
  (1)
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the first quarter of
fiscal year 2008 ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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:  November 9, 2007
    /s/ Lynn  R. BlodgettLynn R. Blodgett,President and Chief Executive Officer of
Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.
sun COL!ntry 

Mr. Brett Kruger 

Office of International Aviation 

U.S Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

April 27, 2015 

Re: DOT-OST-2015-0086: Application of MN Airlines, LLC d/b/a Sun Country Airlines 

for exemption Polling Results 

Dear Mr. Kruger: 

We have completed our polling in the above-referenced docket, and have received no 

objections to the Application of MN Airlines, LLC d/b/a Sun Country Airlines for an 

exemption relating to service between Ft. Myers, FL and Cancun, MX. 

We respectfully request that the Department grant the requested authority and notify 

the Mexican authorities of the planned service pursuant to the U.S. Mexico Air 

Transport Services Agreement. 

That you very much for your assistance. 

Regards, 

Thomas W. 

General Counsel 

Cc: Robert.wirick@aa.com; dan.weiss@united.com; jhill@cooley.com; 

john.varley@virginamerica.com; chris.walker@delta.com; Robert.land@jetblue.com; 

bob. kneisley@wnco. com; leslie. abbott@wnco. com; howard. kass@aa. com; 

jyoung@yklaw.com; slachter@cozen.com 

1300 Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 

Corporate Headquarters 651.681.3900 Reservations 800.359.6786 Fax 651.681.3901
Exhibit 32

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ENACTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Annual Report") of EME Homer
City Generation L.P. (the "Company"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies, to
the best of his knowledge and belief, that:

| |  | /s/ Guy F. GorneyGuy F. Gorney
Director and President
Mission Energy Westside, Inc.,
as General Partner             
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ W. James ScilacciW. James Scilacci
Director and Vice President
Mission Energy Westside, Inc.,
as General Partner

This
statement accompanies the Annual Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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

---



QuickLinks
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R.

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40879

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GUILLERMO ANTONIO PEREZ-DERAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-98-CR-250-1

- - - - - - - - - -

March 23, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Guillermo Antonio Perez-Deras

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required

by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Perez-Deras has

not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and

the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<CIK>     0000064500
<NAME>    SKLAR CORPORATION

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                         63,344
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               2,011,585
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  105,298
<INVENTORY>                                                 3,341,331
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            5,583,614
<PP&E>                                                      1,543,712
<DEPRECIATION>                                                873,004
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              6,891,620
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       4,045,826
<BONDS>                                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                       248
<COMMON>                                                      149,795
<OTHER-SE>                                                  2,681,213
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                6,891,620
<SALES>                                                    13,206,557
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           13,206,557
<CGS>                                                       6,982,450
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              12,714,263
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               32,213
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            163,643
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               325,224
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   41,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           283,424
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  283,424
<EPS-BASIC>                                                    0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0.01


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 23, 2020

a1216

Order 

Clerk

December 23, 2020

161686

LAVETA ANDERSON and CHARLES J. TAUNT, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 161686

COA: 344549

Oakland CC: 2016-153143-NH

JENNY SHIH, D.O., INOCENCIO CUESTA, M.D.,

MALINI VENKATRAM, M.D., SUCHITA

BHEEMREDDY, M.D., KARTHIK YADAGIRI, PT,

RUPA PATEL, PT, UNIVERSITY PHYSICIAN 

GROUP, VHS PHYSICIANS OF MICHIGAN,

HARPER-HUTZEL HOSPITAL, LEGACY HHH,

VHS HARPER-HUTZEL, INC., VHS OF 

MICHIGAN, INC., LEGACY DMC, TENET 

HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, BOTSFORD

GENERAL HOSPITAL, THERAMATRIX, INC.,

d/b/a THERAMATRIX PHYSICAL

REHABILITATION, THERAMATRIX PHYSICAL

REHABILITATION, THERAMATRIX PHYSICAL

THERAPY NETWORK, and THERAMATRIX 

PHYSICAL THERAPY PLAN, INC.,

Defendants,

and

THE WELLNESS PLAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 23, 2020 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 August 5, 2014

Order 

Clerk

August 5, 2014

147758(61)

MICHIGAN COALITION OF STATE

EMPLOYEE UNIONS, INTERNATIONAL

UNION UAW AND LOCAL 6000, MICHIGAN

CORRECTIONS ORGANIZATION/SEIU,

MICHIGAN PUBLIC EMPLOYEES/SEIU

LOCAL 517M, MICHIGAN STATE

EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, AFSCME

LOCAL 5, MICHIGAN AFSCME COUNCIL 25,

ANTHONY MCNEILL, RAY HOLMAN,

ANDREW POTTER, ED CLEMENTS, AMY

LIPSET, WILLIAM RUHF, KENNETH MOORE,

RUSSELL WATERS, MARK MOZDZEN, and

KATHLEEN WINE/ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY

SITUATED,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

SC: 147758

v COA: 314048

Ct of Claims: 12-000017-MM

STATE OF MICHIGAN, STATE EMPLOYEES

RETIREMENT SYSTEM, STATE EMPLOYEES

RETIREMENT SYSTEM BOARD, DEPARTMENT

OF TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET, DEPARTMENT/DIRECTOR 

OF TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,

DIRECTOR OF RETIREMENT SERVICES OFFICE, 

and STATE TREASURER,

Defendants-Appellants.

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants-appellants for leave to file 

a brief in response to the amicus curiae brief filed by the Michigan Civil Service 

Commission is GRANTED. The responsive brief submitted on July 23, 2014, is accepted 

for filing.
I M P U L S A D O S  P O R  C O N E X I Ó N :  M AYO  D E  2024
#### § 110.82 Charlevoix Harbor, Mich.

The waters on the north side of Round Lake northward of a line beginning at a point approximately 200 feet south of the north shore bearing 60°, 280 feet, from the northeast corner of the Charlevoix Municipal Wharf, and bearing thence 92°, 400 feet, thence 129°, 1,160 feet, and thence 110° to the westerly end of the southwest side of Park Island.
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.167 Little Potato Slough.

The draw of the California Department of Transportation highway bridge, mile 0.1, at Terminus, shall open on signal if at least 4 hours notice is given to the drawtender at the Rio Vista bridge across the Sacramento River, mile 12.8.

[CGD11-95-02, 61 FR 17248, Apr. 19, 1996]
#### Western and Atlantic Railroad Company *v.*Callaway.

Submitted July 18,

Decided December 14, 1906.

Action for damages. Before Judge Fite. Whitfield superior court. December 15, 1905.

*Payne & Tye*and *R. J. & J. McCamy,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. M. Rudolph*and *8am P. Maddox,*contra.

Beck, J.

This court will not interfere with the discretion of the court below in granting a first new trial, unless the evidence demands the verdict. -The evidence in the present case being conflicting, the grant of a. new trial will not be reversed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
[MORRIA BIOPHARAAACEUTICALS
PLC]


 


Saul
Yedgar


 


14
March 2007


 


Dear
Mr. Yedgar


 


Your
letter of appointment


 


The
purpose of this letter is to amend clauses 4.1 and 6 of your letter of appointment with the company.


 


I
set out below the proposed changes to your letter of appointment:


 


Clause
4.1 will be amended by adding the following after the first sentence thereof:


 


"From
and after the date hereof, you are entitled to be paid director's fees at the rate of £500 (five hundred pounds) per board/committee
meeting payable in arrears after receipt of a VAT invoice."


 


The
following is to be added as Clause 6.7:


 


"Non-compete


 


From
and after the date hereof, you agree that for the period of six months following the termination of your appointment as a non-executive
director of the Company you will not, without the consent of the Board, take up any role or be involved in or provide technical,
commercial or professional advice to any business or organization either on your own behalf or jointly with or for any other person,
firm or company which is competitive or likely to be competitive with the business of the Company being carried on at the termination
of your appointment and with which you were actively involved during the six months prior to the termination of your appointment.


 


For
the purposes of clause 6.7, you are concerned in a business if:


 


		•	you carry it on as principal or agent; or



 


		•	you are a partner, director, employee, secondee, consultant or agent in, of or to any company,
firm, organization or other entity which carries on the business; or



 



    	 



    	 



    

 


you
have any direct or indirect financial interest (as shareholder or otherwise) in any company, firm, organization or other entity
which carries on the business."


 


If
you agree to these changes, please indicate your acceptance by signing and returning the attached copy of this letter to me by
March 14, 2007. The changes will be deemed to take effect from the commencement of your employment.


 


If
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.


 





	Yours Sincerely
	/s/ Mark Cohen
	 	 




 





For
and on behalf of Morria Biopharmaceuticals plc


 


I
agree that my Contract shall be varied by the revised terms set out in this letter with effect from the commencement of my employment.


 





	/s/ Saul
    Yedagr	 
	14 March 2007
o riginal

No. 7409

#### State of New Hampshire v. Superior Court and Justice of the Peace Michael P. Hall

January 16, 1976

*2
      *Warren B. Rudman,*attorney general, *Richard W. Wiebusch*and *W. John Funk,*assistant attorneys general *(Mr. Wiebusch*orally), for the State.

*Stanley M. Brown*and *Michael P. Hall (Mr. Brown*orally) for the defendants.

Memorandum Opinion

Petition for a writ of prohibition pursuant to RSA 490:4 (Supp. 1975) seeking to prevent the implementation of the superior court’s order allowing the taking of the depositions of the attorney general and one of his assistants. After subpoenas were served on the aforementioned attorneys to appear to give their depositions in connection with a pending antitrust action, they filed a motion in superior court to quash the subpoenas and vacate the notice of taking of deposition. After hearing, the motion was denied by *Johnson,*J., and their petition was filed here.

Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy which, although within the discretion of this court, is used with caution and forbearance and only when the right to relief is clear. *Hillsborough v. Superior Court,*109 N.H. 333, 334, 251 A.2d 325, 326 (1969); *Wyman v. Durkin,*114 N.H. 781, 330 A.2d 772 (1974).

Although attorneys are not immune from being required to give their depositions in cases in which they are counsel, the existence of the attorney-client privilege and the work product rule make it unlikely that there would be areas of inquiry which would not be protected. *Riddle Spring Realty Co. v. State,*107 N.H. 271, 220 A.2d 751 (1966); *Hickman v. Taylor,*329 U.S. 495 (1947); *United States v. Nobles,*422 U.S. 225 (1975). Although there was no showing in the superior court that other areas of inquiry probably exist in the pending action, after a hearing in this court we cannot say that there are none. Superior Court Rule 41 gives adequate protection during the taking of the depositions against improper areas of inquiry including those protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product rule. RSA 491: App. R. 41.

*Petition for writ of prohibition denied.*

Kenison, C.J., sat but did not participate in the consideration and decision of this case.
§ 106.230 OCS facility recordkeeping requirements. ( a ) Unless otherwise specified in this section, the Facility Security Officer (FSO) must keep records of the activities as set out in paragraph (b) of this section for at least 2 years and make them available to the Coast Guard upon request.
( b ) Records required by this section may be kept in electronic format. If kept in an electronic format, they must be protected against unauthorized access, deletion, destruction, amendment, and disclosure. The following records must be kept: ( 1 ) *Training.* For training under § 106.215, the date of each session, duration of session, a description of the training, and a list of attendees;
( 2 ) *Drills and exercises.* For each drill or exercise, the date held, a description of the drill or exercise, a list of participants, and any best practices or lessons learned which may improve the FSP;
( 3 ) *Incidents and breaches of security.* Date and time of occurrence, location within the OCS facility, a description of the incident or breach, the identity of the individual to whom it was reported, and a description of the response;
( 4 ) *Changes in MARSEC Levels.* Date and time of the notification received, and the time of compliance with additional requirements;
( 5 ) *Maintenance, calibration, and testing of security equipment.* For each occurrence of maintenance, calibration, and testing, record the date and time, and the specific security equipment involved;
( 6 ) *Security threats.* Date and time of occurrence, how the threat was communicated, who received or identified the threat, a description of the threat, to whom it was reported, and a description of the response;
( 7 ) *Declaration of Security (DoS).* A copy of each DoS for at least 90 days after the end of its effective period; and
( 8 ) *Annual audit of the Facility Security Plan (FSP).* For each annual audit, a letter certified by the FSO stating the date the audit was conducted.
[USCG-2003-14759, 68 FR 39345, July 1, 2003, as amended at 68 FR 60558, Oct. 22, 2003]
Reducing Homelessness with Affordable, Accessible 

Housing for People with Disabilities

Assistive Technology, Disability and Homeless Services 

Systems Partnerships in New York

In 2017, AIM, a center for independent living (CIL) in New York, began to explore how 

to create increased housing opportunities for people with disabilities experiencing or at 

risk of homelessness. AIM engaged with its local Continuum of Care (CoC) 

homelessness program to provide the services and supports individuals need to live 

healthy, successful, engaged lives in the community. At the time, the CoC did not have 

representation from disability-specific stakeholders. AIM became a partner of the CoC,

of which CARES of NY, Inc., is the collaborative applicant. As a partner, AIM is working

to increase the supply of affordable, accessible housing in the state. In addition, AIM is

a regional Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities (TRAID)

Center. The Center has facilitated assistive technology and accessibility solutions for 

individuals experiencing housing instability due to inaccessible home environment 

concerns.

Programs and Services

AIM currently provides two sites in its Supportive Housing Program for people with 

disabilities and young adults who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. While both 

are independently owned, AIM has staff on-site who advocate with and for residents 

and connect them to services. Placement in AIM’s supportive housing sites is available 

through Coordinated Entry in the Southern Tier Entry to Programs and Services 

(STEPS), the CoC working to address homelessness in the region in partnership with

CARES of NY.
2

AIM is currently working to expand with the addition of a supportive housing project for 

individuals with substance use disorder, set to open in 2023, and two additional projects

slated for 2025. AIM and its partners are working diligently to highlight what a robust, 

responsive network looks like.

Best Practices and Lessons Learned

• Learn how to step outside of your comfort zone and use your voice to enhance 

and expand the partnership network to more effectively address the needs of 

people with disabilities.

• Know how to identify partners with the necessary expertise to make the 

partnership work within the confines of program regulations.

• Identify the strengths and benefits of adding a disability-led program, like a CIL, 

to a CoC.

Funding Sources

Funding Source Federal State/Local Other

Supportive Housing for Older Adults and People 

with Disabilities

X

Supportive Housing for Individuals with 

Substance Use Disorder

X

Supportive Housing for Youth Experiencing 

Homelessness

X

TRAID Program X

Southern Tier Entry to Programs and Services 

(STEPS)

X

Contacts

John Zick, Chief Operating Officer, AIM Independent Living Center, jzick@aimcil.com

Kelsey Addy, MAP, Director of Planning, CARES of NY, Inc., kaddy@caresny.org

Melinda Dolezal, TRAID Director, New York State Justice Center, 

Melinda.Dolezal@Justicecenter.ny.gov
#### § 780.1007 Exemption is inapplicable if wreath-making is not in or about a home.

The section 13(d) exemption does not apply when the wreaths are made in or about a place which is not considered a “home”. Careful consideration is required in many cases to determine whether work is being performed in or about a home. Thus, the circumstances under which an employee may engage in work in what ostensibly is a “home” may require the conclusion, on an examination of all the facts, that the work is not being performed in or about a home within the intent of the term and for purposes of section 13(d) of the Act.
Exhibit 10.3

AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT made as of the 13th day of May, 2004 by and between AEROFLEX INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation
(hereinafter the "Company") and LEONARD BOROW (hereinafter the "Executive").

W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated March 1, 1999, as amended subsequently by Amendment Agreements dated
September 1, 1999, August 13, 2001 and November 8, 2001(hereinafter the "Employment Agreement"); and

WHEREAS,
the Company and Executive desire to further modify the said Employment Agreement.

NOW,
THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.

| |  | AEROFLEX INCORPORATED
| |  | ---------------------
| |  | By:                  
| |  |                      

---