alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32(a)



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I, Dennis J. Kuester, Chief Executive Officer of Marshall & Ilsley Corporation (the Company), certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (14 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: March 9, 2004.



/s/ Dennis J. KuesterDennis J. KuesterChief Executive OfficerMarshall & Ilsley Corporation




This certification accompanies
this Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by Marshall & Ilsley Corporation for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
#### Early v. Moore.

Argued Monday, March 14th, 1814.

i. Bond — Judgment on Form* — Case at Bar. — A judgment ought not to be entered on a bond for a sum of money, “subject to a credit for a hogshead of tobacco,” without ascertaining its value; but the amount of such credit should, in the first place, be ascertained by a writ of enquiry, and judgment should be rendered for the balance.

See Rev. Code, 1st vol. ch. 66, sect. 42, p. 80.

*117Thomas Moore, assignee of Andrew Donald, brought an action of debt against Jacobus Early. The declaration made a profert of a writing obligatory under seal, describing it as an obligation in which the defendant acknowledged, that, on a final settlement of his accounts with Andrew Donald, he owed him justly the sum of 3271. 4s. 4d. with interest from March 22d, 1804, “subject only to a credit for one hogshead of tobacco, delivered in the year 1799.” The defendant pleaded “payment,” but afterwards waved his plea ; whereupon judgment was entered against him for the said sum of money, with interest, “subject to a credit for one hogshead of tobacco, delivered in the year 1799 without ascertaining the value of the tobacco.

To this judgment, together with the subsequent judgment on a forthcoming bond, a writ of supersedeas was awarded by a judge of the court of appeals.

Wirt for the plaintiff in error.

Wickham contra.

*Thursday, April 7th, 1814,

*

See generally, monographic *note*on “Judgments” appended to Smith v. Charlton, 8 Gratt. 425.

JUDGE ROANE

pronounced the court’s opinion, that the District Court erred in rendering judgment for 3271. 4s. 4d. with interest, &c. subject to a credit of a hogshead of tobacco delivered in the year 1799, instead of having the value of that tobacco ascertained, as of that date, and rendering judgment for the balance, after the amount of that value with interest shall have been deducted.

Both judgments reversed, and the cause remanded to the superior court of law, “in order to be proceeded in subsequent to the waver of the plea.” .
§ 155.330 Oily mixture (bilge slops)/fuel oil tank ballast water discharges on U.S. non-oceangoing ships. ( a ) No person may operate a U.S. non-oceangoing ship in the navigable waters of the United States, unless it has the capacity to retain on board all oily mixtures and is equipped to discharge these oily mixtures to a reception facility.
( b ) A U.S. non-oceangoing ship may retain all oily mixtures on board in the ship's bilges. An oil residue (sludge) tank is not required.
( c ) This section does not apply to a fixed or floating drilling rig or other platform.
[CGD 75-124a, 48 FR 45715, Oct. 6, 1983, as amended by USCG-2000-7641, 66 FR 55571, Nov. 2, 2001]
AIDD: UCEDD: FY 2012 Community Education Participants

State Program

Name Childcare Education Employment Health Housing Qualityof Life Recreation Transportation QualityAssurance Other

Other

(Assistive

Technology)

Other

(Cultural

Diversity)

Other

(Leadership)

Total

FY

2012

AZ Sonoran UCEDD 145 16 20 6 180 63 430

AZ

Institute for

Human

Development,

UCEDD

457 1,106 247 1,810

CA

UC Davis

UCEDD at the

MIND Institute,

UCEDD

935 550 1,485

DC

Georgetown

University

Center for Child

& Human

Development,

UCEDD

872 330 60 568 170 2,000

FL

Florida Center

for Inclusive

Communities,

UCEDD

602 2,874 77 1,641 408 5,602

GA

Institute on

Human

Development

and Disability,

UCEDD

67 367 505 48 237 1,224

GU

Guam Center

for Excellence

in Disabilities

Education,

UCEDD

1,315 19 152 17 1,503

ID

Center on

Disabilities and

Human

Development,

UCEDD

22 192 11 225

IN

Indiana

Institute on

Disability and

Community,

UCEDD

13 6,350 1,096 32 50 875 8 174 25 192 8,815

KY

Interdisciplinary

Human

Development

Institute,

UCEDD

188 2,674 725 31 93 530 4,241

LA

Louisiana State

University

Human

Development

Center - New

Orleans, UCEDD

1,868 81 209 2,158

MI

Developmental

Disabilities

Institute,

UCEDD

170 20 126 482 1,275 2,073

MS

Institute for

Disability

Studies, UCEDD

11 50 61

NH

Institute on

Disability,

UCEDD

1,263 230 172 249 36 1,950

NJ

The Elizabeth

M. Boggs

Center on

Developmental

Disabilities,

UCEDD

1,695 921 3,559 6,175

OR

Center on

Human

Development,

UCEDD

432 267 25 724

PA Institute 45 168 275 1,155 63 259 1,965

PR

Institute on

Developmental

Disabilities,

UCEDD

457 45 244 178 924

RI

The Paul V.

Sherlock Center

on Disabilities, 863 41 110 331 1,345
UCEDD

TX

Center on

Disability and

Development,

UCEDD

1,610 1,610

VI Virgin Islands

UCE, UCEDD 996 996

VT

Center on

Disability &

Community

Inclusion,

UCEDD

1,071 833 1572 2,063

WY

Wyoming

Institute for

Disabilities,

UCEDD

545 173 232

Total 825 25,470 3,378 4,993 50 2,633 50 160 5,617 3,200 2,215 656 364 49,611
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Annual Report of Marsh Supermarkets, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending March 29, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas
W. Dougherty, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/  Douglas W. Dougherty
-------------------------
Douglas W. Dougherty
Chief Financial Officer
June 27, 2003

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO MARSH SUPERMARKETS, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY MARSH SUPERMARKETS,
INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON
REQUEST.
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  FinancialContent,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and Controller of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of their 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/ Wing Yu                                 /s/ Thomas McAleer
---------------------------                 -------------------------------
    Wing Yu                                     Thomas McAleer
    Chief Executive Officer,                    Controller
    September 29, 2004                          September 29, 2004

This  certification  accompanies  the  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.
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

**I, Russell K. Girling, Chief Executive Officer of TCPipeLines GP, Inc., the general partner of TC PipeLines, LP (the Partnership),in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 hereby certify,**to the best of my knowledge, in connection with the Partnership’sQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) on the date hereof, that:

** **

•                  the Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

•                  the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 
| Dated:     November  2, 2007 | /s/ Russell K. Girling                          |
|--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                             | Russell  K. Girling                             |
|                                             | Chairman, Chief  Executive Officer and Director |
|                                             | TC PipeLines GP,  Inc., as general partner of   |
|                                             | TC PipeLines, LP (Principal Executive Officer)  |
§ 162.35 Channel of Christina River, Del.; navigation. ( a ) That vessels of over 20 tons capacity, propelled by machinery, shall not proceed at any time within the limits of these waters at a greater speed than 8 statute miles per hour.
Hillsborough

No. 6482

#### William R. Lawton v. Annabelle M. Lawton

August 27, 1973

*430
      *Green, Romprey, Sullivan & Beaumont*and *Mr. Leonard S. Green (Mr. Green*orally) for the plaintiff.

*Hamblett, Kerrigan, LaTourette Lopez*and *Joseph C. Krolikowski (Mr. Krolikowski*orally) for the defendant.

Grimes, J.

When these parties were divorced in 1966, a stipulation approved by the court provided that William pay Annabelle $240,000 in 240 monthly installments of $1,000. The question transferred without ruling by *Loughlin,*J. is whether or not this provision is a property settlement which under *Douglas v. Douglas,*109 N.H. 41, 242 A.2d 78 (1968), is not subject to modification. We hold the provision is a property settlement and not subject to modification.

The three children of the parties whose custody went to the mother were 14, 17, and 20 years old at the time of the divorce. There was no specific provision for support. Other provisions gave her the family home with the personal property therein, all Nashua Corporation stock, one of two automobiles, and an assignment of one-half of William’s interest in any property interest he had in certain inventions.

William waived all and any claim to future modification of the agreement relating to the $240,000 based on change of circumstances of either party or otherwise.

The court found that the agreement regarding the $240,000 was somewhat ambiguous but that, while the intention of the parties may have been to give Annabelle a vested right in it, the $1,000 per month was actually used for support. It was found that there was some difficulty with the Internal Revenue Service and Annabelle unwillingly included the sum received as alimony in her tax return.

It appears to us that the $240,000 was intended as a property settlement as the court found. The fact that Annabelle used the payments for support does not alter the nature *431of the settlement. She was free to use her property as she wished. The action of the Internal Revenue Service for tax purposes is in no way binding on the courts of this State with regard to the issue before us. The provision for payment over a 20-year period indicates that the agreement was unrelated to the support of the children in view of their ages at the time.

We thus conclude that the agreement with regard to the $240,000 is not subject to modification. *Douglas v. Douglas,*109 N.H. 41, 242 A.2d 78 (1968).

*Remanded.*

Griffith, J., did not sit; the others concurred.
# T of C

# A-1 sel info by St

# A-2 Cases closed amt

# A-3A-B NF-Comp beds

# A-3C-D NF-Comp grp

# A-4A-B BC-Comp beds

# A-4C-D BC-Comp grp

# A-5A-B Comp Ver-Disp

# A-6A Fac-Beds

# A-6B Fac-Beds pct

# A-7 Entities

# A-8 Staff vol

# A-9 Money amt-%

# A-10 Other Acts
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 annual report on Form 10-K of MGE Energy, Inc. (the "Company"), for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Jeffrey C. Newman, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    /s/ Jeffrey C. NewmanJeffrey C. Newman
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
Secretary and Treasurer

Date: February 26, 2009
§ 144.01-20 Life preservers. ( a ) An approved life preserver shall be provided for each person on a manned platform. The life preservers shall be located in easily accessible places.
( b ) All kapok and fibrous glass life preservers which do not have plastic-covered pad inserts shall be removed from service.
( c ) Each life preserver carried on a manned platform must have a personal flotation device light that is approved under Subpart 161.012 of 46 CFR Part 161. Each light must be securely attached to the front shoulder area of the life preserver.
( d ) Each life preserver carried on a manned platform must have at least 200 sq. cm (31 sq. in.) of retroreflective material attached on its front side, at least 200 sq. cm on its back side, and at leat 200 sq. cm of material on each of its reversible sides. The material must be Type I material that is approved under 46 CFR 164.018. The material attached on each side of a life preserver must be divided equally between the upper quadrants of the side, and the material in each quadrant must be attached as closely as possible to the shoulder area of the life preserver.
[CGFR 60-35, 25 FR 10132, Oct. 25, 1960, as amended by CGD 78-160, 47 FR 9383, Mar. 3, 1982; USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35530, June 30, 1998]
Argued and submitted August 14, 1991,

affirmed August 26,

reconsideration denied October 28,

petition for review allowed November 24, 1992 (314 Or 727)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*DAVID R. BRAWNER, *Appellant.*

(P128161; CA A67877)

836 P2d 748

Donald P. Roach, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Stephanie S. Andrus, Certified Law Student, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Brenda J Peterson, Assistant Attorney General, Salem.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Deits, Judge.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *State v. Trenary,*114 Or App 608, 836 P2d 739 (1992).
Original

No. 7497

#### Richard S. Lockhart George B. Roberts, Jr., Speaker of the House v. Meldrim Thomson, Jr., Governor Lyle E. Herson James H. Hayes Leon G. Yeaton Louis D’Allesandro Bernard A. Streeter, Jr.

June 30, 1976

*Michael R. LaFontaine*and *Gordon B. Snyder (Mr. LaFontaine*orally) for the plaintiffs.

*Anthony A. McManus,*by brief and orally, for plaintiff Lockhart.

*David H. Souter,*attorney general, and *Richard V. Wiebusch,*assistant attorney general *(Mr. Wiebusch*orally), for the defendants.

*Shaines, Madrigan & McEachern*and *Gregory D. Robbins,*filed an amicus curiae brief for the Seacoast Regional Counseling Center.

Per curiam.

Petition for writ of certiorari requesting this court to declare that the February 18, 1976 policy promulgated by the Governor and Executive Council is beyond the constitutional authority of the Governor and Council and that the application of the policy to plaintiff Lockhart is in violation of his constitutional rights.

Plaintiff Lockhart is an elected member of the house of representatives and further serves as the administrative director of the Seacoast Regional Counseling Center. On May 5, 1976, the State *416coordinator for drug abuse prevention requested the Governor and Council to approve a contract with the Seacoast Regional Counseling Center for the continued operation of a drug abuse counseling center using federal funds which had been previously accepted by the Governor and Council. The Governor and Council approved the contract, but pursuant to the executive policy of February 18, its approval was conditioned on resignation of plaintiff Lockhart from the New Hampshire House of Representatives pursuant to part (3) of the executive policy.

That part of the policy adopted on February 18, 1976, which was applied to the plaintiff Lockhart was determined to be invalid in the *Opinion of the Justices,*No. 7493, decided this day. Accordingly, it is unnecessary for us to consider the plaintiffs’ federal constitutional claim and the order is

*Petition dismissed.*
THE GOOD NEWS ABOUT FRUITS & VEGETABLES

Fruits and vegetables are a great source

of many vitamins, minerals, and fiber 

the body needs. They are also packed

with hundreds of naturally occurring

substances called phytochemicals that

may help protect against many diseases.

And most fruits and vegetables are low

in fat and calories. 

VITAMINS

Fruits and vegetables provide many

important vitamins, like vitamin A and

vitamin C. The body needs vitamins to do

many things. For example, some vitamins

help the body produce energy. Others

help keep skin healthy. Many adults do

not get enough vitamins A and C through

the foods they eat. The best way to get

vitamins is to eat the whole foods that

contain them like fruits and vegetables.

MINERALS

Fruits and vegetables provide many

important minerals, like potassium and

magnesium. Many adults do not get

enough potassium and magnesium. The

body needs potassium to help maintain

healthy blood pressure and magnesium

to help maintain healthy bones.

FIBER

Most fruits and vegetables are a good

source of fiber. One type of fiber can help

lower cholesterol. It also slows down

digestion so that the body can absorb more

nutrients and better control blood sugar

levels. Another type of fiber helps you

get rid of waste and keeps you regular.

PHYTOCHEMICALS

Phytochemicals (fight-o-chemicals) are 

naturally occurring substances in fruits

and vegetables. Phytochemicals may

help fight to protect your health. Fruits

and vegetables have hundreds of 

phytochemicals. Phytochemicals work

together with vitamins and minerals 

to promote good health. 

Here are just a few examples of the 

phytochemicals found in fruits and 

vegetables: 

• Carotenoids in red and yellow-orange

fruits and vegetables (such as tomatoes,

sweet potatoes, carrots) 

• Lycopene in tomato-based foods 

(such as tomato sauce, tomato paste) 

• Lutein and zeaxanthin in leafy greens

(such as collard greens, spinach,

romaine lettuce) 

• Flavanoids in brightly colored fruits

and vegetables (such as blueberries,

cherries, strawberries) 

The vitamins, minerals, fiber, 

and phytochemicals in fruits 

and vegetables combine 

for a health-protecting 

and disease-fighting 

effect that you can’t get 

from vitamin pills. Only 

a variety of fruits and 

vegetables give you all of 

these nutrients together. 

What’s in

fruits and vegetables?
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer of

HORIZON BANCORPORATION, INC.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
(Adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



The undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc., hereby certifies that:

1. Horizon Bancorporation, Inc.'s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (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 Horizon Bancorporation, Inc.'



/S/ James J. Bazata
James J. Bazata, 
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
November 10, 2004
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00276-CV

J.C. PEREZ, III,

Appellant

v.

Oswald Wally ALANIS,

Appellee

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 08-03-46823

Honorable Nelva Gonzales-Ramos, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 2, 2008 

CROSS-APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Oswald Wally Alanis, has filed a motion to dismiss his

cross-appeal. The motion contains a certificate of service to appellant/cross-appellee, who does not

oppose the motion. Therefore, we grant the motion and dismiss the cross-appeal. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a)(2). The appeal filed by appellant J.C. Perez, III is retained on the court’s docket. Costs

of the appeal will be assessed upon final disposition of the appeal.

PER CURIAM