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

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of New Energy Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending May 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 14, 2009 (the Report), I, Meetesh Patel, President, Chief Executive Officer and 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.
|   

|Date: July 14, 2009 | /s/ Meetesh Patel
Meetesh PatelPresident, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer
|------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner
v. DEAN I. ORLOFF, Respondent

PER CURIAM: : : : : : : : No.2055 Disciplinary Docket No.3 No. 124 DB 2012 Attorney Registration No. 48217 (Philadelphia)
O R D E R

AND NOW, this 14th day ofAugust, 2014, upon consideration ofthe Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated March 31, 2014, the Petition for Review and responses thereto,it is hereby ORDERED that Dean I. Orloff is suspended from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period ofone year and one day and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217,Pa.R.D.E. It is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuantto Rule 208(g),Pa.R.D.E.
EX-10.1









EXHIBIT 10.1  



FIRST AMENDMENT TO
CREDIT AGREEMENT



        This
First Amendment to Credit Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into
this 7th day of February, 2005, by and between BANK OF THE WEST (the “Bank”)
and THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY INCORPORATED (the “Borrower”) with respect to the
following: 




        This
Amendment shall be deemed to be a part of and subject to that certain Credit Agreement
dated as of December 30, 2003 as it may be amended from time to time, and any and all
addenda and riders thereto (collectively the “Agreement”). Unless otherwise
defined herein, all terms used in this Amendment shall have the same meanings as in the
Agreement. To the extent that any of the terms or provisions of this Amendment conflict
with those contained in the Agreement, the terms and provisions contained herein shall
control. 




        WHEREAS,
the Borrower and the Bank mutually desire to extend and/or modify the Agreement. 




        NOW
THEREFORE, for value received and hereby acknowledged, the Borrower and the Bank agree as
follows: 





        
        1.
Extension of Expiration Date. The date provided for in the definition of Expiration Date
in Section 1.1.11of the Agreement shall be extended to December 31, 2006.  




        
        2.
Representations and Warranties. The Borrower hereby reaffirms the representations and
warranties contained in the Agreement and represents that no event, which with notice or
lapse of time, could become an Event of Default, has occurred or is continuing.  




        
        3.
Confirmation of Other Terms and Conditions of the Agreement. Except as specifically
provided in this Amendment, all other terms, conditions and covenants of the Agreement
unaffected by this Amendment shall remain unchanged and shall continue in full force and
effect and the Borrower hereby covenants and agrees to perform and observe all terms,
covenants and agreements provided for in the Agreement, as hereby amended.  




        
        4.
Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of California to which jurisdiction the parties hereto hereby consent and
submit.  




        
        5.
Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same
instrument.  



        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by the parties hereto as of the date
first hereinabove written. 





	BANK:
      

      

      BANK OF THE WEST 

      

      By: 

             ————————————————

      

             Jason Horstman, Vice President

             Name/Title	BORROWER: 

      

      THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY INCORPORATED 

      

      By: 

             ————————————————

      

             Michael Dixon, Chief Financial
      Officer

             Name/Title






4
#### Ella A. Dana, *as Administratrix, etc., v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company.

Motion for new trial. New trial denied and judgment ordered for defendant upon the verdict.
#### § 52.01-90 Materials.

Material subject to stress due to pressure must conform to specifications as indicated in paragraphs PG-5 through PG-14 of Section I of the ASME BPVC (incorporated by reference; see § 52.01-1).

[USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65161, Oct. 31, 2008]
§ 540.23 Procedure for establishing financial responsibility. ( a ) In order to comply with section 2 of Pub. L. 89-777 (46 U.S.C. 44101, 44103-44106) enacted November 6, 1966, there must be filed an Application on Form FMC-131 for a Certificate of Financial Responsibility to Meet Liability Incurred for Death or Injury to Passengers or Other Persons on Voyages. Copies of Form FMC-131 may be obtained from the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573.
( b ) An application for a Certificate (Casualty) shall be filed in duplicate with the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, by the vessel owner or charterer at least 60 days in advance of the sailing. Late filing of the application will be permitted only for good cause shown. All applications and evidence required to be filed with the Commission shall be in English, and any monetary terms shall be expressed in terms of U.S. currency. The Commission shall have the privilege of verifying any statements made or any evidence submitted under the rules of this subpart. An application for a Certificate (Casualty), excluding an application for the addition or substitution of a vessel to the applicant's fleet, must be accompanied by a filing fee remittance of $2,080. An application for a Certificate (Casualty) for the addition or substitution of a vessel to the applicant's fleet must be accompanied by a filing fee remittance of $1,013.
( c ) The application shall be signed by a duly authorized officer or representative of the applicant with a copy of evidence of his authority. In the event of any material change in the facts as reflected in the application, an amendment to the application shall be filed no later than five (5) days following such change. For the purpose of this subpart, a material change shall be one which: ( 1 ) Results in a decrease in the amount submitted to establish financial responsibility to a level below that required to be maintained under the rules of this subpart, or
( 2 ) requires that the amount to be maintained be increased above the amount submitted to establish financial responsibility. Notice of the application for, issuance, denial, revocation, suspension, or modification of any such Certificate shall be published in the Federal Register.
[49 FR 36313, Sept. 14, 1984, as amended at 59 FR 59172, Nov. 16, 1994; 63 FR 50537, Sept. 22, 1998; 67 FR 39861, June 11, 2002; 70 FR 10331, Mar. 3, 2005; 74 FR 50731, Oct. 1, 2009; 81 FR 59145, Aug. 29, 2016; 83 FR 50295, Oct. 5, 2018; 85 FR 72578, Nov. 13, 2020; 88 FR 16898, Mar. 21, 2023]
§ 69.108 Uppermost complete deck. ( a ) *Defined.* “Uppermost complete deck” means the uppermost deck which extends from stem to stern and from side to side at all points of its length and is bound by the vessel's hull.
( b ) *Restrictions.* The uppermost complete deck must not: ( 1 ) Extend above any space exempted as open space under paragraph (d) of § 69.117;
( 2 ) Extend below the design waterline, except in the case of vessels such as submersibles, where the entire uppermost complete deck is submerged during normal operations; or
( 3 ) Rest directly on consecutive or alternating ordinary bottom frames or floors for a distance of over one-half of the tonnage length.
( c ) *Deck discontinuities.* Decking athwartships of the following deck discontinuities is not considered to be part of the uppermost complete deck: ( 1 ) Through-deck openings that are not protected from the sea and the weather, such as would be provided by hatch covers or a surrounding superstructure that encloses the opening and whose area is more than 10 percent of the total deck area from stem to stern as viewed from above.
( 2 ) Middle line openings conforming to the requirements of § 69.117(e)(2).
( 3 ) Deck recesses that are not through-hull for which the depth of the deck recess at its deepest point is more than five feet below adjacent portions of the deck, and whose area (as viewed from above) is more than 10 percent of the total deck area from stem to stern, as viewed from above.
( 4 ) Notches bounded by a deck below that wrap around from the ends to the sides of the vessel for which the depth at the deepest point is more than five feet below adjacent portions of the deck, the area is more than one percent of the total deck area from stem to stern as viewed from above, the length of the notch in the direction of the vessel's longitudinal axis exceeds 10 feet at any point across its width, and the width of the notch in the direction of the vessel's longitudinal axis exceeds two feet at any point along its length.
[USCG-2011-0522, 81 FR 18725, Mar. 31, 2016]
<PAGE>


                                                                 Exhibit 10.13.2

                                AMENDMENT TO THE
                         INTERSTATE BAKERIES CORPORATION
                            1996 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

         WHEREAS, Interstate Bakeries Corporation (the "Corporation") adopted
the Corporation's 1996 Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan") to enable
employee-directors, non-employee directors, executive officers and employees of
the Corporation to acquire or increase their equity interests in the Corporation
on such reasonable terms as the Board of Directors of the Corporation (the
"Board"), or the Compensation Committee thereof, shall determine;

         WHEREAS, although Article 1.1 expressly provides that the Plan is
designed to enable Employee-Directors (as defined in the Plan) to receive awards
under the Plan, neither Article IV nor Article V contains provisions expressly
permitting awards to be granted to Employee-Directors;

         WHEREAS, the Plan grants the Committee (as defined in the Plan) the
authority to interpret the Plan and has interpreted the Plan as permitting
grants of stock options and shares of restricted Stock to Employee-Directors in
accordance with the Plan's stated purpose; and

         WHEREAS, the Committee recommended to the Board that the Plan be
amended as provided herein and the Board has determined that it is advisable
that the Plan be so amended;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended, effective July 9, 2003, as
follows:

         1. Section 2.12 of the Plan is hereby amended to add the words "and any
Employee-Director" between the words "the Corporation or a Subsidiary" and
"who."

         2. The first paragraph of Article V is hereby amended to delete the
words "employee" and "employees" in first and second sentences of such
paragraph, respectively, and substitute the words "Eligible Employee" and
"Eligible Employees," respectively, in their place

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment to the Interstate Bakeries
Corporation 1996 Stock Incentive Plan is hereby adopted as of this 9th day of
July, 2003.

                              INTERSTATE BAKERIES CORPORATION

                              /s/ James R. Elsesser
                              ---------------------------------
                              By:    James R. Elsesser
                              Title: Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 23


              Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-39446) pertaining to the 1987 Incentive Stock Option and
Appreciation Plan, 1990 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors and Options
Granted to Certain Officers, Directors, Consultants and Scientific Advisory
Board Members under Written Compensation Agreements; (Form S-8 No. 33-48044)
pertaining to Options Granted Certain Officers, Directors, Consultants and
Scientific Advisory Board Members under Written Compensation Agreements; (Form
S-8 No. 33-50156 and No. 33-82310) pertaining to the 1992 Stock Option/Stock
Issuance Plan; (Form S-8 No. 333-36879) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Incentive
Plan; (Form S-3 No. 33-55520, No. 33-61935, No. 333-08659, No. 333-62955 and No.
333-82683) pertaining to the registration of shares of Advanced Tissue Sciences,
Inc. Common Stock of our report dated February 1, 2000, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Advanced Tissue Sciences, Inc., and our
report dated January 19, 2000, with respect to the combined financial statements
of the Dermagraft Joint Venture included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of
Advanced Tissue Sciences, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1999.


                                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP



San Diego, California
March 24, 2000
#### The State ex rel. Lloyd, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Lloyd v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 224.]

(No. 97-1096

Submitted October 27, 1998

Decided December 30, 1998.)

*Spitler & Williams-Young Co., L.P.A.,*and *William R. Menacher,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Cordelia A. Glenn,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 12****RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**                       **Fiscal** **Fiscal** **Fiscal** **Fiscal** **Fiscal**(In thousands) **2002** **2003** **2004** **2005** **2006**(a) Earnings before minorityinterest and income taxes, plusfixed charges  946   989   2,888   8,058   8,652                      (b) Total Fixed Charges (interest)  141   85   52   2,160   4,545                      **Ratio of Earnings to**  **0.85**   **11.70**   **55.09**   **3.73**   **1.90** **Fixed Charges** **to** **to** **to** **to** **to****(a)/(b)**  **1.0**   **1.0**   **1.0**   **1.0**   **1.0**
### SERVED : FEBRUARY 22 , 201 2

U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATlONl^^'.y^^-'^^Anrn^ifK ^ OFFIC EOFHEARING S • A-^^t i ^- i TM . - • WASHINGTON , D C 

## m l rt B 7 2 P

## 3 ^ 2 ' I N TH EMATTE RO F ERJC K ALBERT O MEDIN A FA A DOCKE T N O [T O B EASSIGNED ]

(Civi l Penalty Action ) FDM S NO . FAA^2012-002 7 NOTIC EO FASSIGNMEN T O FPROCEEDIN G Thi s proceedin g (heretofor e designate da s Cas e No . 2011WP230044 ) ha s bee n assigne d t o Administrativ e Law Judg e RichardC Goodwin . Al l future pleading s an

dothe r communication s regardin g this proceedin g shall b e serve don th e Judge , th e FAA Hearin g Docket , an

dth e othe r

person s on th e attache dServic e List .

Ronni e A . Yode r Chie f Adniinistrativ^La w Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFDM S No . FAA-2012-002 7 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON ECOP Y Eric k Albert o Medina , Responden t Al l E . El k Avenu e Glendale,C A 9120 5 FAX : 818-552-289 5 ATTN : Susan a Lis aJ . Toscano , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counsel , AWP- 7 Western-Pacifi c Regio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n P.O . Bo x 9200 7 Lo s Angeles , C A 90009-200 7 TEL : 310-725-711 0 FAX : 310-725-681 6 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Ac/ministrativ e Lm v Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S^E . Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Scr\'ice wa

s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r ser\'ic e i n perso n o r b y expeditedcourier, use th

e followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio n Administration , 60

0 Independence Avenue . S.W. . Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Wasliington , D C 20591 , Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 .

- 2 -
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 6
Federal Reserve Bank of: Atlanta

## Filings received during the week ending April 18, 2009

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Editorial Note on Part 515
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 515 appear at 67 FR 39860, June 11, 2002, and 70 FR 7669, Feb. 15, 2005.

§ 515.13 Investigation of applicants. The Commission shall conduct an investigation of the applicant's qualifications for a license. Such investigations may address: ( a ) The accuracy of the information submitted in the application;
( b ) The integrity and financial responsibility of the applicant;
( c ) The character of the applicant and its qualifying individual; and
( d ) The length and nature of the qualifying individual's experience in handling ocean transportation intermediary duties.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 6, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50214

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MANUEL GERARDO CHAVEZ-MACIEL

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:06-CR-816-ALL

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Manuel Gerardo ChavezMaciel raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a

penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. See United States v.

Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007). The Government's motion
No. 07-50214

2

for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
#### § 67.517 Application for late renewal.

In addition to any other fees required by this subpart, including a renewal fee, a fee is charged for a late renewal in accordance with subpart L of this part.

[USCG-2010-0990, 79 FR 47023, Aug. 12, 2014]
#### Kaulback *v.*Churchill.

When the terms of a contract made by an agent are clear, they are to have the same construction and legal effect whether made for a domestic or for a foreign principal.

Assumpsit, for apples sold and delivered. The defendant, residing in this state, was the agent of A. & O. W* Mead & Co., a *297firm doing business in Boston, and all its members resident in Massachusetts. At the time of the sale of the apples, the plaintiff was informed and knew that the defendant was acting as agent of the firm. A referee found for the defendant.

*Mellows,*for the plaintiff.

A. & O. W. Mead & Co. resided and did business in Massachusetts, which as to matters of this kind is a foreign state. *Emery*v. *Berry,*28 N. H. 473, 486; 1 Gr. Ev., *ss.*489, 504. Agents or factors, acting for merchants resident in a foreign country, are held personally liable upon all contracts made by them for their employers; and this without any distinction whether they describe themselves in the contract as agents or not. Story Agency, *ss.*267, 268, 290, and cases cited; *McKenzie*v. *Nevius,*22 Me. 138. We say that in case of a principal residing in a foreign state, whether the agency is disclosed or not at the time of the contract, the plaintiff has his election to hold either principal or agent responsible. 2 Kent Com. 631, notes, and cases cited.

*Marston Sf Eastman,*for the defendant.

Clark, J.

“If a duly authorized agent uses such terms as legally import an undertaking by the principal only, the contract is that of the principal, and he alone is the party by whom it is to be performed.” Met. on Cont. 106. Whether the defendant assumed a personal liability in making the contract is a question of fact, which has been determined by the finding of the referee. *Noyes*v. Patrick, 58 N. H. 618. The fact that the firm of A. & O. W. Mead were residents of Massachusetts, doing business there, is not of itself a ground for holding the defendant personally liable. “ The present doctrine is, that when the terms of a contract made by an agent are clear, they are to have the same construction and legal effect whether made for a domestic or for a foreign principal.” Met. on Cont. 111. The statement cited by the plaintiff, from Story Agency, *s.*288, is not now recognized as the law, excepting perhaps in Maine and Louisiana. Met. on Cont. 111; *Bray*v. *Kettell,*1 Allen 80; *Kirkpatrick*v. Stainer, 22 Wend. 244; *Oelricks*v. *Ford,*23 How. 49.

*Judgment for the defendant.*

Bingham:, J., did not sit: the others concurred.