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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Community Bank Corporation of America (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Kenneth P. Cherven, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 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 as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |     |  |                                                          
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 13, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Kenneth P. Cherven                                   
|                        |  |     |  | Kenneth P. Cherven, President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.1
 
                            STERLING COMMERCE, INC.
                             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                JURISDICTION OF
NAME                                             INCORPORATION
----                                            ---------------
<S>                                             <C>
DOMESTIC
--------
Sterling Commerce, Inc., a Wyoming corporation  Wyoming
Sterling Commerce (America), Inc.               Delaware
Sterling Commerce (Mid America), Inc.           Michigan
Sterling Commerce (Northern America), Inc.      Delaware
Sterling Commerce (U.S.), Inc.                  Delaware
Sterling Commerce International, Inc.           Delaware
Sterling Commerce Leasing, Inc.                 Delaware
INTERNATIONAL
-------------
Sterling Commerce B.V.                          Netherlands
Sterling Commerce International SARL            France
Sterling Commerce (France), SARL                France
Sterling Commerce GmbH                          Germany
Sterling Commerce (UK) Ltd.                     United Kingdom
Sterling Electronic Commerce (Canada), Inc.     Canada
</TABLE>
--------
NOTES:
1. Indented names are subsidiaries of the subsidiary listed immediately above
   such subsidiary.
2. Inclusion in this exhibit is not a representation that the subsidiary is a
   significant subsidiary.
3. The voting shares of all subsidiaries are 100% owned by Sterling Commerce,
   Inc., its subsidiaries or employee nominees.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                         160,334
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,437
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               182,190
<PP&E>                                          73,048
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,474
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 292,247
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          148,642
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        93,246
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,758
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   142,004
<SALES>                                         36,022
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,022
<CGS>                                           14,674
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,732,508
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 409
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,071,877)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 68.415 Hearing aid-compatibility and volume control informal complaints.

Persons with complaints under §§ 68.4 and 68.112 that are not addressed by the states pursuant to § 68.414, and all other complaints regarding rules in this part pertaining to hearing aid compatibility and volume control, may bring informal complaints as described in § 68.416 through § 68.420. All responsible parties of terminal equipment are subject to the informal complaint provisions specified in this section.

[66 FR 7587, Jan. 24, 2001]
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.19

                                 Stephen Russell
                              Employment Agreement

                                 Amendment No. 5

         Amendment No. 5, dated as of November 20, 2002, to the employment
agreement dated as of January 21, 1994 between Celadon Group, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), and Stephen Russell ("Employee"), as amended by the
amendments dated as of February 12, 1997, August 1, 1997, July 26, 2000 and
April 4, 2002 (the "Employment Agreement").

         The parties wish to amend the Employment Agreement as set forth below.
Accordingly, the parties agree as follows:

         1.       Section 1 of the Employment Agreement is amended in its
                  entirety to read as follows:

                           "The Company agrees to continue to employ Employee,
                  and Employee agrees to continue to serve, on the terms and
                  conditions of this Agreement for a period commencing on the
                  date hereof and ending on January 21, 2006. The period during
                  which Employee is employed hereunder is hereinafter referred
                  to as the "Employment Period." The Employment Period shall be
                  automatically renewed for successive two-year terms unless
                  either party gives written notice to the other at least 90
                  days prior to the expiration of the then Employment Period, of
                  such party's intention to terminate Employee's employment
                  hereunder at the end of the then current Employment Period."

         2.       Agreement Otherwise Unchanged. The Employment agreement, as so
                  amended, shall remain in full force and effect.

         3.       Counterparts. This amendment may be executed in counterparts,
                  each of which shall be deemed an original, but both of which
                  together shall constitute the same agreement.

                                 CELADON GROUP, INC.

                                 By:  /s/ Paul A. Will
                                      ----------------
                                      Name: Paul A. Will
                                      Title: Executive Vice President

                                 By:  /s/ Michael Miller
                                      ------------------
                                      Name: Michael Miller
                                      Title: Chairman of Compensation Committee

                                 By:  /s/ Stephen Russell
                                      -------------------
                                      Name: Stephen Russell
No. 11-10125.

#### Sharp *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 25.156 Consideration of applications. ( a ) Applications for a radio station authorization, or for modification or renewal of an authorization, will be granted if, upon examination of the application, any pleadings or objections filed, and upon consideration of such other matters as it may officially notice, the Commission finds that the applicant is legally, technically, and otherwise qualified, that the proposed facilities and operations comply with all applicable rules, regulations, and policies, and that grant of the application will serve the public interest, convenience and necessity.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) Reconsideration or review of any final action taken by the Commission will be in accordance with subpart A of part 1 of this chapter.
( d ) ( 1 ) Applications for NGSO-like satellite operation will be considered pursuant to the procedures set forth in § 25.157, except as provided in § 25.157(b) or (i), as appropriate.
( 2 ) Applications for GSO-like satellite operation will be considered pursuant to the procedures set forth in § 25.158, except as provided in § 25.158(a)(2).
( 3 ) Applications for both NGSO-like satellite operation and GSO-like satellite operation in two or more service bands will be treated as separate applications for each service band, and each service band request will be considered pursuant to § 25.157 or § 25.158, as appropriate.
( 4 ) Applications for feeder-link authority or inter-satellite link authority will be treated like an application separate from its associated service band. Each feeder-link request or inter-satellite link request will be considered pursuant to the procedure for applications for GSO-like operation or NGSO-like operation, as applicable.
( 5 ) [Reserved]
( 6 ) An application for DBS or DARS services will be entitled to comparative consideration with one or more conflicting applications only if: ( i ) The application is mutually exclusive with another application; and
( ii ) The application is received by the Commission in a condition acceptable for filing by the “cut-off” date specified in a public notice.
[56 FR 24016, May 28, 1991, as amended at 68 FR 51505, Aug. 27, 2003; 81 FR 55333, Aug. 18, 2016; 82 FR 59985, Dec. 18, 2017; 85 FR 43735, July 20, 2020]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> 
THIS INFORMATION CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             67
<SECURITIES>                                        0        
<RECEIVABLES>                                   2,067<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                       22<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0 
<PP&E>                                              4
<DEPRECIATION>                                      1
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  2,362
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                           735
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                        357
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    2,362
<SALES>                                             0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  272
<CGS>                                               0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      51 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    1
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 98
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   122
<INCOME-TAX>                                       40
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                82
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                       82
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
<FN>
<F1> THE BALANCE SHEET PRESENTED BY CASE CREDIT CORPORATION 
IS UNCLASSIFIED
</FN>
        



</TABLE>
§ 73.6025 Antenna system and station location. ( a ) Applications for modified Class A TV facilities proposing the use of directional antenna systems must include all appropriate documentation specified in § 73.625(c)(3).
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) Where a Class A TV licensee or permittee proposes to mount its antenna on or near an AM tower, as defined in § 1.30002, the Class A TV licensee or permittee must comply with § 1.30003 or § 1.30002.
( d ) Class A TV stations are subject to the provisions in § 73.617(d) regarding blanketing interference.
[65 FR 30009, May 10, 2000, as amended at 78 FR 66298, Nov. 5, 2013; 89 FR 7264, Feb. 1, 2024]
#### § 80.229 Special requirements for automatic link establishment (ALE).

Brief signalling for the purposes of measuring the quality of a radio channel and thereafter establishing communication shall be permitted within the 2 MHz-30 MHz band. Public coast stations providing high seas service are authorized by rule to use such signalling under the following conditions:

(a) The transmitter power shall not exceed 100 W ERP;

(b) Transmissions must sweep linearly in frequency at a rate of at least 60 kHz per second, occupying any 3 kHz bandwidth for less than 50 milliseconds;

(c) The transmitter shall scan the band no more than four times per hour;

(d) Transmissions within 6 kHz of the following protected frequencies and frequency bands must not exceed 10 μW peak ERP:

(1) Protected frequencies (kHz)

| 2091.0 | 4188.0 | 6312.0 | 12290.0 | 16420.0 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2174.5 | 4207.5 | 8257.0 | 12392.0 | 16522.0 |
| 2182.0 | 5000.0 | 8291.0 | 12520.0 | 16695.0 |
| 2187.5 | 5167.5 | 8357.5 | 12563.0 | 16750.0 |
| 2500.0 | 5680.0 | 8364.0 | 12577.0 | 16804.5 |
| 3023.0 | 6215.0 | 8375.0 | 15000.0 | 20000.0 |
| 4000.0 | 6268.0 | 8414.5 | 16000.0 | 25000.0 |
| 4177.5 | 6282.0 | 10000.0 | | |

(2) Protected bands (kHz)

4125.0-4128.0

8376.25-8386.75

13360.0-13410.0

25500.0-25670.0

(e) The instantaneous signal, which refers to the peak power that would be measured with the frequency sweep stopped, along with spurious emissions generated from the sweeping signal, must be attenuated below the peak carrier power (in watts) as follows:

(1) On any frequency more than 5 Hz from the instantaneous carrier frequency, at least 3 dB;

(2) On any frequency more than 250 Hz from the instantaneous carrier frequency, at least 40 dB; and

(3) On any frequency more than 7.5 kHz from the instantaneous carrier frequency, at least 43 + 10log10 (peak power in watts) db.

[62 FR 40307, July 28, 1997]
#### GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK, EXECUTOR AND TRUSTEE UNDER LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF MAX GOEBEL, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. THE FIRST NATIONAL IRON BANK OF MORRISTOWN, EXECUTOR UNDER LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF CARRIE HAMMANN, DECEASED, ET ALS., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND J. HOWARD McGRATH, ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, ET ALS., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Argued October 29, 1951

Decided November 5, 1951.

*120
      *Mr. Alfred C. Clapp*argued the cause for the appellants *(Messrs. Hetfield ■& Hetfield*and *Mr. Albert H. Holland,*attorneys).

*121
      *Mr. John F. Cushman*of the New York Bar argued the cause for the respondents, J. Howard McGrath, *et als. (Mr. Grover C. Richman, Jr.,*and-MV. *Edward V. Ryan,*attorneys.)

*Mr. James ■J. Langan*argued the cause for the plaintiff-respondent *(Messrs. Marldey •& Broadhurst,*attorneys).

Pee Cueiam.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Stanton.

*For*affirmance—Chief Justice Vandeebilt and Justices Oliphant, Wacheneeld and Ackekson—4.

*For*reversal—Justices Case and Bueling—-2.
§ 76.907 Petition for a determination of effective competition. ( a ) A cable operator (or other interested party) may file a petition for a determination of effective competition with the Commission pursuant to the Commission's procedural rules in § 76.7.
( b ) If the cable operator seeks to demonstrate that effective competition as defined in § 76.905(b)(1), (3), or (4) exists in the franchise area, it bears the burden of demonstrating the presence of such effective competition. Effective competition as defined in § 76.905(b)(2) is governed by the presumption in § 76.906, except that where a franchising authority has rebutted the presumption of competing provider effective competition as defined in § 76.905(b)(2) and is certified, the cable operator must demonstrate that circumstances have changed and effective competition is present in the franchise area. Note to paragraph ( b
):
The criteria for determining effective competition pursuant to § 76.905(b)(4) are described in Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Report and Order in CS Docket No. 96-85, FCC 99-57 (released March 29, 1999).
( c ) If the evidence establishing effective competition is not otherwise available, cable operators may request from a competitor information regarding the competitor's reach and number of subscribers. A competitor must respond to such request within 15 days. Such responses may be limited to numerical totals. In addition, with respect to petitions filed seeking to demonstrate the presence of effective competition pursuant to § 76.905(b)(4), the Commission may issue an order directing one or more persons to produce information relevant to the petition's disposition.
[64 FR 35950, July 2, 1999, as amended at 80 FR 38013, July 2, 2015]
TEVEIN WATSON

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 17

- 3051

Opinion filed September 28, 2017.

Petition for Belated Appeal

-- Ori ginal Jurisdiction

.

Tevein Watson, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belate d appeal is denied on the merits.

ROBERTS, KELSEY, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
----

**Exhibit      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF**

**THE      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b)**

**OF      SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)**

|   | (1) | the                Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,                2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)                or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Dated:         August                1, 2007 |        | /s/                Gregory L. Cauthen      |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                      | Name:  | Gregory                L. Cauthen          |
|                                                                                      |        | Senior                  Vice President and |
|                                                                                      |        | Chief                Financial Officer     |

----
No. 11-5094.

#### Replogle *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of *Tapia*v. *United States,*564 U. S. 319 (2011).
**Exhibit99.2**

Certification of Chief Fiancial Officer ofCommercial National Financial Corporation

Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-K of Commercial National FinancialCorporation (the “Corporation”) for the period endingSeptember 30, 2002 (the “Report”), I, Gregg E. Hunter,Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
| (1) |   | The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and                                                           |
|-----|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) |   | The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of CommercialNational Financial Corporation. |
|  |   | /s/ Gregg E.Hunter     |   |
|--|--------|------------------------|--------|
|  |   | Gregg E. Hunter        |   |
|  |   | Chief FinancialOfficer |   |
|  |   | March 28, 2003         |   |

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided toCommercial National Financial Corporation and will be retained byCommercial National Financial Corporation and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.