alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Certification Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002



In connection with this Annual Report of Timberjack Sporting Supplies, Inc. ("Timberjack") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Wesley Brumbaugh, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Timberjack, certify, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

1.

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

2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Timberjack as of and for the periods presented in the Report.

Date: January 16, 2007

/s/ Wesley Brumbaugh

Wesley Brumbaugh

Chief Executive Officer

Date: January 16, 2007

/s/ Wesley Brumbaugh

Wesley Brumbaugh

Principal Financial Officer
#### Slattery, plaintiff in error, v. People.

*Trial—exceptions, when necessa/ry*— *when error no ground for reversing conviction.*

The court, upon the trial of an indictment for an assault with intent to kill, at the request of the prisoner, charged the jury that they could not convict of an assault with a sharp, dangerous weapon, with intent to do bodily harm. The prisoner took no exception to the ruling. The jury convicted of assault, with intent to kill. *Meld,*(1) that an exception was necessary to present an error for review; and (2) that as the charge, if wrong, could not prejudice the prisoner, and as it was made at his request, the error was no ground for reversing the conviction.

Error to the court of general sessions of the city of Mew York, to review the conviction of Patrick Slattery. The facts appear in the opinion.

*William F. Kintzing,*for plaintiff in error.

*Benjamin K. Phelps,*for People.

Daniels, J.

The prisoner was indicted and convicted of an assault with intent to kill. Before the cause was submitted to the *670jury his counsel requested the court to charge that he could not he convicted under the indictment of an assault with a sharp, dangerous weapon, with intent to do bodily harm, and the court so held and charged. To this ruling no exception was taken, if indeed any properly could have been, after it was made by the express solicitation of the prisoner’s counsel. *Proestler*v. *Kuhn,*49 N. Y. 654.

In cases punishable by death or by imprisonment in the State prison for life, as a minimum punishment, tried in the court of general sessions, an exception is not required in order to present a legal proposition for review upon writ of error after conviction. Laws 1855, chap. 337, §§ 3, 4. But this case is not within the provisions of that act, because the maximum term of imprisonment cannot extend beyond the period of twenty years. Laws 1865, chap. 212, § 3. Whether the court was right or wrong in holding that the prisoner could not be convicted under the indictment of the offense of making an assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm, is not, therefore, properly before this court for its decision. *Wilke*v. *People,*53 N. Y. 525.

But if it were it could do the prisoner no good, because the proposition was held by the court in response to his own express request, and though wrong, as it clearly was, since it was in direct conflict with the statute, it could be of no service to him, because the jury have, by their verdict, negatived the idea that the crime committed by him was any thing less than that charged in the indictment. 3 Rev. Stat. (5th ed.) 970, § 25. The error in that state of the case could by no possibility prejudice the prisoner. On the contrary, it afforded him an opportunity of being convicted of a simple assault and battery, when, under the circumstances, he was strictly entitled to no such lenity.

As this is the only reason urged in favor of a reversal of the conviction, and there is clearly nothing in the objection taken, the conviction should be affirmed.

Davis, P. J., and Brady, J., concurred.

*Conviction affirmed.*
#### F. F. Fabor *v.*L. H. Green.

January Térm, 1900.

Present: Taft, C. J., Powell, Tyler, Munson, Start, Thompson and Watson, JJ.

Opinion filed February 12, 1900.

*Sale of methyl alcohol*— Methyl alcohol, or wood spirit, being a deadly narcotic poison, not intended to be used as a beverage, and which cannot be so used, its sale is not prohibited by V. S. Chapter 187, relating to the traffic in intoxicating liquors.

*Scope of V. S. Chapter 187*— The laws against the illegal traffic in intoxicating liquors were intended to include only such liquors as could be used as a beverage.

Assumpsit to recover the purchase price of fifty gallons of methyl alcohol. Oity Court of Montpelier, January 30, 1900, *SmiUe,*J. Trial by the court, and judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant excepted.

The defence was that methyl alcohol is intoxicating liquor within the meaning of Y. S. Chapter 187, and that therefore no recovery could be had for the purchase price. The facts stated in the opinion were found by the trial court.

*Lord & Ga/rleton*for the plaintiff.

*H. G. Shurtliff*for the defendant.

Watson, J.

The plaintiff seeks to recover the purchase price of fifty gallons of methyl alcohol, commonly known as wood spirit or wood alcohol, sold by him to the defendant.

The defendant contends that this alcohol is an intoxicating liquor, the sale of which is prohibited by law, and therefore no recovery can be had by reason of section 4464 of Yermont Statutes.

Such alcohol is obtained by the destructive distillation of wood, is ranked as a narcotic poison, and if drank either pure, adulterated, reduced many times its weight in water, other aleo*118hoi or fluid, it kills the person drinking it. It was not intended to be used as a beverage and could not be so used.

The laws against the illegal traffic in intoxicating liquors were intended to include only such liquors as could be used as a *bever&ge*— Russell v. Sloan, 33 Vt. 656 — and to construe the statute as prohibiting the sale of other liquids similar in name but so much more poisonous in nature as to prevent their being used in that way, would be giving it an extraneous and unnatural force not intended.

“ Nothing is better settled than that statutes should receive a sensible construction, such as will effectuate the legislative intention, and, if possible, so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion.” *Lau Ow Bew*v. *United*States, 144 U. S. 47.

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### § 1705.8 Appeal of an initial adverse agency determination on correction or amendment of the record.

An individual who disagrees with the refusal of the System Manager to correct or to amend his or her record may submit a request for review of such refusal to the Chairman of the Commission, 1717 K Street NW., Suite 601, Washington, DC 20036. The Chairman will, not later than 30 days from the date on which the individual requests such review, complete such review and make a final determination unless, for good cause shown, the Chairman extends such 30-day period. If, after his or her review, the Chairman also refuses to correct or to amend the record in accordance with the request, the individual may file with the Commission a concise statement setting forth the reasons for his or her disagreement with the refusal of the Commission and may seek judicial review of the Chairman's determination under 5 U.S.C. 552a(g)(1)(A).
Exhibit
10.40
 
 
 January
14, 2009
 
 Amjad
Huda
 Chief
Financial Officer
 WaferGen
Bio-systems, Inc.
 
 Re:           Salary
Adjustment
 
 Dear
Amjad:
 
 Per our
agreement on November 1, 2008, your base salary was reduced from $5,048 per week
($262,500 annualized) to $4,290 per week, effective November 1,
2008.  Please sign below to confirm your agreement to these salary
adjustments.
 
 WaferGen
Bio-Systems, Inc. (“WaferGen”) will increase your base salary to the rate of
$262,500 per year in the event it (a) raises $5 million in gross proceeds from
the sale of its securities in one or more financings on or prior to March 30,
2009, excluding any gross proceeds received in connection with any financings
completed by its subsidiary, WaferGen Biosystems (M) Sd. Bhd., a Malaysian
corporation; or (b) raises after March 30, 2009 funds sufficient to finance
WaferGen’s operations at its then-current burn rate for an additional nine
months after the closing of such financing, as reasonably determined by the
compensation committee of the board of directors of WaferGen.  Such
salary increase would be documented in a written agreement to be signed by the
Company and you.
 
 All other
terms of your Executive Employment Agreement dated May 31, 2007 will remain in
full force and effect, including the severance provisions in Section
10.  In the event you become eligible for severance under Section 10
of your Executive Employment Agreement, your severance will be calculated based
on a salary rate of $262,500 per year.  You acknowledge and agree that
you are waiving any right you may have to terminate your employment for “Good
Reason” under Section 10(e) of your Executive Employment Agreement with respect
to this one-time salary reduction as described above.
 
 We
appreciate your continuing support and contributions to WaferGen during these
challenging times for our industry.
 
 Very truly
yours,
 
 /s/ Alnoor
Shivji
 Alnoor
Shivji
 
 ACCEPTED
AND AGREED:
 
 Dated:  January
16,
2009                                                 /s/ Amjad Huda
 Amjad
Huda
#### § 2106.4 Requests for copies of records.

Rules governing requests for copies of records are the same as those for the granting of access to the records outlined in § 2106.2 of this part (see also § 2106.7 for rules regarding fees).
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

IntiieMatterof ) 

) All-14 

Dallas County Republican Party ) Agenda Documents No. 14-12 and No. 

) 14-12-A 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Shawn Woodhead Werth. recording secretary for the Federal Election Commission 

open meeting on March 06.2014, do hereby certify that the Commission decided by a vote of 6-

0 to approve Agenda Document No. 14-12-A, the Proposed Final Audit Report on the Dallas 

County Republican Party. 

Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, Petersen, Ravel, Walther, and Weintraub voted 

affinnatively for the decision. 

Attest: 

^IfhtAthl.m'f <%mjmlZludli!)My 

Date ' Shawn Woodhead Werth ^ 

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission
§ 1177.29 Suspension of collection activity. ( a ) NEH may suspend collection activity on a debt when: ( 1 ) NEH cannot locate the debtor;
( 2 ) NEH expects the debtor's financial condition to improve; or
( 3 ) The debtor has requested a waiver or review of the debt.
( b ) NEH may suspend collection activity on a debt when, based on the debtor's current financial condition, the debtor's future prospects justify retention of the debt for periodic review and collection activity and: ( 1 ) The applicable statute of limitations has not expired; or
( 2 ) Future collection can be effected by administrative offset, notwithstanding the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations for litigation of claims, with due regard to the ten-year limitation for administrative offset prescribed by 31 U.S.C. 3716(e)(1); or
( 3 ) The debtor agrees to pay interest on the amount of the debt on which collection will be suspended, and such suspension is likely to enhance the debtor's ability to pay the full amount of the debt with interest at a later date.
( c ) ( 1 ) NEH will suspend collection activity during the time required to consider the debtor's request for waiver or administrative review of the debt, if the statute under which the debtor makes the request prohibits NEH from collecting the debt during that time.
( 2 ) If the statute under which the debtor makes the request does not prohibit collection activity pending consideration of the debtor's request, NEH may use discretion, on a case-by-case basis, to suspend collection. Further, NEH ordinarily will suspend collection action upon a request for waiver or review if a statute or regulation prohibits NEH from issuing a refund of amounts it collected prior to considering the debtor's request. However, NEH should not suspend collection when it determines that the request for waiver or review is frivolous or was made primarily to delay collection.
( d ) If NEH learns that a bankruptcy petition has been filed with respect to a debtor, in most cases it must suspend the collection activity on that debtor's debt, pursuant to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. 362, 1201, and 1301, unless NEH can clearly establish that the automatic stay has been lifted or is no longer in effect. NEH will immediately seek legal advice from its Office of the General Counsel and, if legally permitted, take the necessary legal steps to ensure that the agency does not pay any funds or money to the debtor until it obtains relief from the automatic stay.
#### § 2490.102 Application.

This part (§§ 2490.101-2490.170) applies to all programs or activities conducted by the agency, except for programs or activities conducted outside the United States that do not involve individuals with handicaps in the United States.
#### § 201.0 Scope and applicability.

Titles I, X, XIV and XVI (as in effect without regard to section 301 of the Social Security Amendments of 1972) shall continue to apply to Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. The term *State* as used in such titles means Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.

[39 FR 8326, Mar. 5, 1974]
Exhibit 32.1




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




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Implant Sciences Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Glenn D. Bolduc, President, Chief Executive Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:




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




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




/s/Glenn D. BolducGlenn D. BolducPresident, Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 3, 2011







This certification accompanies each report of the Company on Form 10-Q and Form 10-K pursuant to §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 us for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or our staff upon request.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 Certification Pursuant to
Section 302
Of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, George M. Lee, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MetroCorp
Bancshares, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:  a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting. Date: August 27, 2004 /s/ George M. Lee
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1524 

To allow flood insurance coverage under the national flood insurance program 

for new structures designed to protect public safety that are located 

in special flood hazard zones. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 16, 2009 

Ms. MATSUI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To allow flood insurance coverage under the national flood 

insurance program for new structures designed to protect 

public safety that are located in special flood hazard 

zones. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Public Safety En5 hancement Act of 2009’’. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1524 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCEPTION TO PROHIBITION OF INSURANCE FOR 

2 PROPERTIES IN VIOLATION OF STATE AND 

3 LOCAL LAWS REGARDING DEVELOPMENT IN 

4 FLOOD-PRONE AREAS. 

5 Section 1316 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 

6 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4023) is amended by inserting ‘‘, other 

7 than a structure that is used in providing a public safety 

8 or first responder service, which shall include police and 

9 firefighting services,’’ after ‘‘for any property’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       7,263,255
<SECURITIES>                                14,032,958
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,327,651
<ALLOWANCES>                                   567,838
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,573,228
<PP&E>                                      10,932,633
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,199,257
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              50,835,058
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,750,771
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,745,777
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                50,835,058
<SALES>                                     71,246,758
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            71,246,758
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               60,602,013
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,644,745
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,458,621
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,186,124
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,186,124
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .91


</TABLE>
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.

November 6, 2013

t1030 

# Order

Clerk November 6, 2013

147382

ROBERT EDWARD ELDE,

Plaintiff

- A ppellee,

v SC: 147382

COA: 308638

MCAC: 10

- 000162

CASTLES BROTHERS, INC.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 4, 2013

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.
**EXHIBIT 10.3**Schedule identifying agreements substantially identical to the form of Indemnity Agreementconstituting Exhibit 10-q-1 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedSeptember 30, 2004, entered into by Conexant Systems, Inc. and each of the following personsNameDaniel A. ArtusiDonald R. BeallSteven J. BilodeauDwight W. DeckerF. Craig FarrillBalakrishnan S. IyerJohn W. MarrenD. Scott MercerJerre L. SteadGiuseppe ZoccoJ. Scott BlouinJasmina T. BoulangerLewis C. BrewsterDennis E. O’ReillyKerry K. PetryF. Matthew Rhodes
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 04-501 

________________________________________________________________________ 

COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION 

 Agreement between 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the MARSHALL ISLANDS 

Amending the Agreement of 

June 25, 1983, concerning the 

Compact of Free Association, 

As Amended 

Signed at Majuro April 30, 2003 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 MARSHALL ISLANDS 

 

 Compact of Free Association 

 Agreement amending the agreement of June 25, 1983 

 concerning the Compact of Free Association, 

 as amended. 

 Signed at Majuro April 30, 2003; 

 Entered into force May 1, 2004.