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

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Relating to a Periodic Report
Containing Financial Statements

Each of, William J. Reuter, Chief Executive Officer, and Drew K. Hostetter, Chief Financial Officer, of
Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that, based on his knowledge:

(1) The Companys periodic
report containing financial statements on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date: As of November 8, 2007



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER |  |  |  | CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
|                        |  | 
|/s/ William J. Reuter   |  |  |  | /s/ Drew K. Hostetter  
|William J. Reuter       |  |  |  | Drew K. Hostetter
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       5,900,000
<SECURITIES>                                15,355,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,739,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (649,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            33,873,000
<PP&E>                                       6,486,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,575,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,950,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,691,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    55,670,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (29,549,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,121,000
<SALES>                                     22,676,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            43,433,000
<CGS>                                        1,240,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,710,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            46,256,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               248,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (16,061,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    91,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (16,152,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (16,152,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.16)
        

</TABLE>
§ 46.10-70 Plans and inspections of new and converted vessels. ( a ) Plans for a new passenger vessel or a vessel to be converted to a passenger vessel shall be submitted to the Commandant as required by subpart 71.65 of subchapter H (Passenger Vessels) of this chapter.
( b ) Inspections shall be made during the construction or conversion of the vessel as required by subpart 71.20 of subchapter H (Passenger Vessels) of this chapter.
( c ) Upon completion of construction or conversion of a passenger vessel, a stability test must be performed and stability information must be supplied to the operator as required by part 170 of this chapter.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16769, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGD 79-023, 48 FR 51007, Nov. 4, 1983]
EXHIBIT 99.16
 CONSENT OF EXPERT
   (a)
    
    under the headings Operations and Development Projects  Uranium Operating
Properties  McArthur River/Key Lake, Operations and Development Projects  Uranium
Development  Cigar Lake, Mineral Reserves and Resources  and Governance  Interest
of Experts in the Corporations Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31,
2010 dated February 16, 2011 for the McArthur River/Key Lake and the Cigar Lake
properties; and(b)
    
    under the heading Mineral Reserves and Resources in Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation for the year ended December 31,
2010 dated February 14, 2011 for the McArthur River/Key Lake and the Cigar Lake
properties,
    /s/        Lorne SchwartzName:
    
    Lorne Schwartz, P. Eng.Title:
    
    Chief Metallurgist, Major Projects  Technical Services, Cameco CorporationDate:
    
    February 16, 2011
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7391

JERRY LEE KEY , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Charleston

. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. ( 2:17

- cv
- 00556 )

Submitted : February 15, 2018 Decided: February 20, 2018

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jerry Lee Key , Appellant Pro Se

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jerry Lee Key appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying Key’s motion for a certificate of innocence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2513 (2012) . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Key v. United States , No. 2:17

- cv
- 00556 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 29, 2017) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Editorial Note on Part 199
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 199 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59789, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 199.203 Marshalling of liferafts. ( a ) Each passenger vessel must have a lifeboat or rescue boat for each six liferafts when— ( 1 ) Each lifeboat and rescue boat is loaded with its full complement of persons; and
( 2 ) The minimum number of liferafts necessary to accommodate the remainder of the persons on board have been launched.
( b ) A passenger vessel engaged on a short international voyage that also complies with the standards of subdivision requirements for vessels on short international voyages as described in subchapter S of this chapter may have a lifeboat or rescue boat for each nine liferafts when— ( 1 ) Each lifeboat and rescue boat is loaded with its full complement of persons; and
( 2 ) The minimum number of liferafts necessary to accommodate the remainder of the persons on board have been launched.
# United Sta tes Co urt of A ppea ls F O R T HE D I S T R

I C T O F C O L U M B I A

C I RC U I T 

# No. 11-1108 September Term, 2016 FI L ED: D E C E M B E R 

### 23, 2016 U N I TE D 

### S TA TE S 

### S U G

A R 

### C O R P O R A TI ON 

### , P E TI TI ON E R


### v. E N V I R ON ME N TA L 

### P R O TE C TI O

N 

### A G E N C Y 

### , R E S P ON D E

N T 

### A ME R I C A N 

### C H E M I S TR

Y 

### C O U N C I L 

### , E T A L 

### ., I N TE R V E N O R S 

### Consolidated with 11-1124, 11-1134, 11-1142, 11-1145, 11- 1159, 11-1165, 11-1172, 11- 1174, 11-1181, 13-1086, 13- 1087, 13-1091, 13-1092, 13- 1096, 13-1097, 13-1098, 13- 1099, 13-1100, 13-1103

____________________________________ 

# No. 11-1141 A ME R I C A N 

### C H E M I S TR

Y 

### C O U N C I L 

### , P E TI TI ON E R


### v. E N V I R ON ME N TA L 

### P R O TE C TI O

N 

### A G E N C Y 

### , R E S P ON D E

N T 

### A ME R I C A N 

### F O R E S T 

### & P A P E R 

### A S S O C I A TI ON 

### , E T A L 

### ., I N TE R V E N O R S 

### Consolidated with 11-1182, 11-1207, 11-1208, 13-1105, 13- 1107

On Petition for Panel Rehea ring

### Be fore : H E ND E R S ON 

### , B R

O W N 

### and G R I F F I TH 

### , Circuit Judges
. J U D G M E N T These c auses c ame to be he ard on the petition of the Environmental Protec tion Age ncy for pa nel re hear ing a s to remedy , and the r esponses ther eto. On conside ration there of, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judg ment of this court filed July 29, 2016 rema in in effe ct as to No. 11-1125, e t al., Americ an F orest & Paper A ssociation, I nc., et a l. v. EPA, and the above -ca

ptioned case s, in acc ordanc e with the opinion filed Jul y 29, 2016. I t is F URTHER ORDERED and ADJUDG ED that the numeric MACT standards se t in the Major B oilers Rule for ne w and e x isting sourc es in ea ch of the eig hteen subc ateg ories be rema nded without vacatur for the ag ency to conduct fur

ther proc eeding s consistent with the court' s prior opinion issued J uly 29, 2016, in acc ordanc e with the opinion issued here in this date.

F OR THE COURT: Mark J. L ang er, Cler

k BY : /s/ Ken Me adows Deputy Clerk

Date: De cembe r 23, 2016 Opinion Filed Per Curiam
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1411 

KA 13-02152 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, AND CARNI, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SHERRELL L. MOORE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (SHERRY A. CHASE OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ASHLEY R. LOWRY OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Thomas P.

Franczyk, J.), rendered November 18, 2013. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting her upon her

plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15

[4]), defendant contends that her concededly valid waiver of the right

to appeal does not encompass her challenge to the severity of the

sentence because County Court failed to abide by the sentencing

provisions of the plea agreement. The record does not support

defendant’s contention that the court did not comply with the

sentencing provisions of the plea agreement. During the plea

colloquy, the court promised to impose a determinate sentence between

5 and 15 years should defendant comply with certain conditions of the

plea, including cooperating in the prosecution of the codefendants. 

Defendant fulfilled the conditions, and the court sentenced defendant

to a determinate term of incarceration of 91⁄2 years. We thus conclude

that the valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses defendant’s

challenge to the severity of the bargained-for sentence (see People v

Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256; see generally People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825,

827; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737).

Entered: December 23, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 32.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Relating to a Periodic Report
Containing Financial Statements

I, William J. Reuter, Chief Executive Officer, and Drew K. Hostetter, Chief Financial Officer, of
Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that, based on our knowledge:

(1) The Companys periodic
report containing financial statements on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: As of May 2, 2006



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER |  |  |  | CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
|                        |  | 
|/s/ William J. Reuter   |  |  |  | /s/ Drew K. Hostetter  
|William J. Reuter       |  |  |  | Drew K. Hostetter
§ 28.155 Excess fire detection and protection equipment. ( a ) Use of non-approved fire detection systems may be acceptable as excess equipment provided that— ( 1 ) Components are listed and labeled by an independent, nationally recognized testing laboratory (NRTL) as set forth in 29 CFR 1910.7, and are designed, installed, tested, and maintained in accordance with an appropriate industry standard and the manufacturer's specific guidance; and
( 2 ) The system and units remain functional as intended.
( b ) The regulations in this section have preemptive effect over State or local regulation within the same field.
[USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48247, July 22, 2016]
# Acknowledgments

Thisreport was written by co-project team leaders Michael L. Foreman and TriciaJefferson* and attorney-advisors Barbara de La Viez, Jenny Kim Park, PeterReilly, and Bernard Quarterman under the general supervision of Edward A. Hailes,Jr., acting general counsel. The report is based, in substantive part, on ahearing that was organized and initial drafts of a hearing report that werewritten under the supervision of General Counsel Stephanie Y. Moore.* Thepre-hearing research, investigation, planning of the hearing, and writing ofinitial drafts were conducted by project team leader Erik Brown,*attorney-advisors Sicilia Chinn,* Lynn Dickinson,* Peter Reilly, and socialscientist Eileen Rudert.** Staff support was also provided by attorney-advisorsTricia Jefferson,* Joseph Manalili,* and Jessica Roff,* legal technician BerniceRhodes,* and legal secretary Pamela Moye. Legal sufficiency review was conductedby attorney-advisors Joseph Manalili,* Deborah Reid, Joyce Smith, and AudreyWiggins. Editorial policy review was performed by Robert Anthony, TerriDickerson, and Dawn Sweet. The report was prepared for publication by Dawn Sweetwith additional assistance by attorney-advisors Kim Ball and Barbara de La Viez.

**Nolonger with the Commission

**Currently with the Office of Civil Rights Evaluation
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.14    
    


 
 

IHS INC.
  2004 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN    
    
    2004 RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD    
    


        Unless defined in this Restricted Stock Award (this "Award Document"), capitalized terms will have the same
meanings ascribed to them in the IHS Inc. 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan (as may be amended from time to time, the "Plan"). 



        Pursuant
to Section 8 of the Plan, you have been granted restricted Shares on the following terms and subject to the provisions of the Plan, which is incorporated by reference. In
the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Plan and this Award Document, the provisions of the Plan will prevail. 



	Participant:	 	John Oechsle
	

Total Number of Shares Granted:	
 	

17,000 Shares
	

Fair Market Value per Share:	
 	

$8.61 per Share
	

Total Fair Market Value of Award:	
 	

$146,370
	

Grant Date:	
 	

December 23, 2004
	

Vesting Schedule:	
 	

25% will vest on October 15, 2006, another 25% will vest on October 15, 2007 and the last 50% will vest on October 15, 2008; provided, however, that in the event of a Change in Control,
this Award shall vest in full and be free of restrictions, and you will participate in the acquisition to the extent of and in the same manner as all other stockholders of the Company; and provided further that in the event of your death or termination of employment due to your Disability (as defined in Exhibit A attached), this Award shall vest in full and be free of restrictions.





        By
your signature and the signature of the Company's representative below, you and the Company agree that these Shares are granted under and governed by the terms and conditions of the
Plan and the terms and conditions set forth in the attached as Exhibit A. 



	
RECIPIENT	
 	

 	
 	
IHS INC.
	

/s/  H. JOHN OECHSLE      	
 	

 	
 	

By:	

/s/  S. AUXER      
	

H. John Oechsle
 Print Name	
 	

 	
 	

Title:	

Senior Vice President IHS













QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.14


IHS INC. 2004 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 2004 RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

**As AdoptedPursuant to Section 906 of the SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,John T. Sawyer, certify that this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PenhallInternational Corp. fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information containedin this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the registrant.

 

 
| Date:  November 22, 2004 | /s/  John T. Sawyer  |   |
|--------------------------|---------------------------|--------|
|                     | John  T. Sawyer           |
|                     | Chief  Executive Officer  |

 

----
Order filed August 18, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00552-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF E.E.B AND J.E.B., Children

On Appeal from the 312th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-36413

ORDER

The notice of appeal in this case was filed June 25, 2015. The record 

reflects appellant filed an affidavit to proceed without advance payment of costs on 

appeal. On July 22, 2015, the trial court signed an order sustaining a contest to 

appellant’s claim of indigence.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1 governs the procedures to establish 

indigence on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. The rule requires a party claiming 

indigence who seeks review of the trial court’s order sustaining a contest to file his

challenge “within 10 days after the order sustaining the contest is signed, or within 

10 days after the notice of appeal is filed, whichever is later.” Tex. R. App. P. 
20.1(j)(2). As of this date, appellant has not filed a motion challenging the trial 

court’s order.

Accordingly, appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of 

$195.00 to the Clerk of this court on or before September 2, 2015. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 5. If appellant fails to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this 

order, the appeal will be dismissed.

PER CURIAM
This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not *

materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2);

10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral

argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

F I LED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 9, 2006

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

AGUSTIN TOVAR-CHAVEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-2064

(D.C. No. CR-05-1479 MCA)

(D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

*

Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

Defendant Agustin Tovar-Chavez pled guilty to one count of illegal reentry

to the United States after deportation subsequent to a felony conviction, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a)(1), (a)(2) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). Pursuant to

the plea agreement, Mr. Tovar-Chavez waived his “right to appeal any sentence

within the [applicable] statutory range.” Mot. to Enforce, Ex. A, at 5. Appearing
This court attempted to give Mr. Tovar-Chavez an opportunity to file an 1

opposition to the government’s enforcement motion, but the court’s

correspondence to him was returned, marked as refused.

-2-

pro se, Mr. Tovar-Chavez filed a notice of appeal from his conviction and

sentence. The government has filed a motion to enforce its plea agreement with

Mr. Tovar-Chavez. Mr. Tovar-Chavez’s attorney filed a response to the

government’s motion stating his belief that there is no legitimate basis for an

appeal. We grant the government’s motion and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal. 1

This court will enforce a criminal defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal

so long as the following three elements are satisfied: (1) “the disputed appeal

falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights,” (2) the defendant’s

waiver of his appellate rights was knowing and voluntary, and (3) enforcing the

waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice. United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d

1315, 1325 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). We have reviewed the plea

agreement and the response from Mr. Tovar-Chavez’s counsel, and we conclude

that the Hahn factors have been satisfied.

Accordingly, we GRANT the government’s motion to enforce the plea

agreement and DISMISS the appeal. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

PER CURIAM
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-21-00378-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 325th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 325-704950-21

Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

IN THE INTEREST OF C.R., A CHILD
2 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant S.R., proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal from an “Order Denying 

Request for Recusal” signed by the presiding judge of the Eighth Administrative 

Judicial Region. See generally Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a, 18b(b). We notified S.R. of our 

concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the “Order Denying 

Request for Recusal” did not appear to be a final judgment or appealable interlocutory 

order. We informed her that unless she or any party desiring to continue the appeal 

filed a response within ten days showing grounds for continuing the appeal, we would 

dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. Ten days have 

passed, and we have received no response.

 “An order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed only for an abuse of

discretion on appeal from the final judgment.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(j)(1)(A) (emphasis 

added). The trial-court clerk has informed us that there is no final judgment in this 

case. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(a), 43.2(f); Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(j)(1)(A); Thayer v. Thayer, Nos. 02-14-00025-CV, 02-

14-00026-CV, 2014 WL 982433, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 13, 2014, no 

pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (explaining that an order denying a recusal motion is not 

an appealable interlocutory order and may be reviewed only “on appeal from the final 

judgment” (quoting Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(j)(1)(A))).
3

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr

Elizabeth Kerr

Justice

Delivered: April 21, 2022