alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Central Vermont Public Service Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Robert H. Young, Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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

/s/ Robert H. Young      
(Robert H. Young)
Chief Executive Officer
January 19, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Central Vermont Public Service Corporation ("CVPS") and will be retained by CVPS and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### William Scheer, Appellant and Respondent, *v.*The Long Island Railroad Company, Respondent and Appellant.

*Scheer*v. *Long Island R. R. Co.,*134 App. Div. 939, affirmed.

(Argued December 5, 1910;

decided January 3, 1911.)

Cross-appeals from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered October 14, 1909, affirming a judgment partly in favor of plaintiff and partly in favor of defendant, entered upon the report of a referee in an action to restrain the defendant from trespassing upon certain land.

*David B. Ogden,*and *Charles S. Noyes*for plaintiff, appellant and respondent.

*James W. Treadwell*and *Joseph F. Kearny*for defendant, respondent and appellant.

*559Judgment affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ. Haight and Werner, JJ., dissent from affirmance of so much of the judgment as is in favor of the plaintiff. Not sitting: Cullen, Ch. J.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, May 16, 1995 (67), Para 67.12 Order of Business--Consideration of Amendments--H.R. 961]
[Page 703]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.67.12  order of business--consideration of amendments--h.r. 961

  On motion of Mr. SHUSTER, by unanimous consent,
  Ordered, That during the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 961) 
to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union, the time for debate on the 
Boehlert substitute amendment to title VIII, and all amendments thereto, 
be limited to one hour; and the time for debate on the Gilchrest 
amendment to delete wetland delineation and wetland classification 
provisions, and all amendments thereto, be limited to thirty minutes.
```
exv10w9



 








Exhibit 10.9




March 14, 2006




Mark Ianni



Dear Mark:




     [Introductory language regarding 2005 results, omitted. The Company undertakes to furnish a
supplemental copy of such language to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.]



     The bonus plan for 2006 is based on the profit after-tax using a standard corporate tax rate.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	15%

	 	of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of
	 	$	3,000,000	 
	22.5%

	 	of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of
	 	$	4,000,000	 
	30%

	 	of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of
	 	$	5,500,000	 
	37.5%

	 	of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of
	 	$	6,955,000	 
	50%

	 	of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of
	 	$	8,375,000	 
	62.5%

	 	of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of
	 	$	9,700,000	 
	75%

	 	of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of
	 	$	11,000,000	 






     In addition, you will earn 12.5% of your cumulative salary if, in my opinion, you have met the
criteria outlined on the attached.



     The bonus period will be the fiscal months of February 2006 through January 2007. You must be
an active employee of Bakers Footwear Group at the time bonuses are paid to be eligible to receive
your bonus.



     We are excited about our business in the coming year. We hope it is profitable for all of our
shareholders and us.



	 	 	 
	 

	 	Sincerely,
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	/s/ Peter Edison
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	Peter Edison






ss



[Attachment, regarding 2006 goals and objectives, omitted. The Company undertakes to furnish a
supplemental copy of such attachment to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.]
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
               UNDER REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 or 15(d) OF 
                THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
   
      For the Period Ended:           Commission File No.                
       December 31, 1996                 2-78287-NY

                         FOOD CONCEPTS, INC.
       exact name of registrant as specified in its charter
   
          NEVADA                                   13-3124057
(State or other jurisdiction of                 (I.R.S. Employer
 incorporation or organization)               Identification No.)
   
                            6601 Lyons Road
                               Suite C-12
                      Coconut Creek, Florida 33073
                (address of principal executive office)
   
 Registrant's telephone number, including area code:(954)420-0882
   
 Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed all annual, 
quarterly 
and other reports required to be filed with the Commission within the past
ninety days and in addition, has filed the most recent annual report required
to be filed.
   Yes [x]   No [ ]
   
          APPLICABLE ONLY TO ISSUERS INVOLVED IN BANKRUPTCY
             PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PRECEDING FIVE YEARS:
   
     Indicate by check marks whether the registrant has filed all
  documents and reports required to be filed by Sections 2, 13 or
  15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 subsequent to the
  distribution of securities under a plan confirmed by a court.
   Yes [ ]   No [ ]
   
                APPLICABLE ONLY TO CORPORATE ISSUERS:
                                   
   Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes 
of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.
   
   Common Stock $.0001 par value,          12,911,744
        (Title of Class)             (Shares outstanding at
                                        December 31, 1996)
   
   <PAGE>                        1

                         INDEX TO EXHIBIT



FINANCIAL DATA FOR 3 MONTH PERIOD
        ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND
        FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1996






<PAGE 2>
                                    SIGNATURES
   
        Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
   Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Company has duly caused this
   report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto
   duly authorized.
   
   FOOD CONCEPTS, INC.                FOOD CONCEPTS, INC.
   
   
   
   BY: /S/ FRANCIS GLAUBMAN           BY: /S/ HERBERT GLAUBMAN
       FRANCIS GLAUBMAN                   HERBERT GLAUBMAN
   
   Dated: JANUARY 6, 1996           Dated: JANUARY 6, 1996
   
   <PAGE>                       3
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**228 KA 16-00647**  PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, DEJOSEPH, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL D. STEVENS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

KURT HAMELINE, NEW HARTFORD, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SCOTT D. MCNAMARA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, UTICA (STEVEN G. COX OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Michael L. Dwyer, J.), rendered April 12, 2016. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree and resisting arrest.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed and the matter is remitted to Oneida County Court for proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [3]) and resisting arrest (§ 205.30). Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the People failed to present legally sufficient evidence establishing that the officers had probable cause to arrest him for disorderly conduct, which resulted in the crimes of which he was convicted. Defendant failed to renew his motion for a trial order of dismissal after presenting evidence, and he therefore failed to preserve his contention for our review ( see People v Hines
, 97 NY2d 56, 61, rearg denied 97 NY2d 678). In any event, we conclude that defendant’s contention lacks merit ( see People v Sowell , 25 AD3d 386, 387, lv denied 7 NY3d 763; People v Sekoll , 254 AD2d 797, 797, lv denied 92 NY2d 1053; see also People v Tichenor , 89 NY2d 769, 776-777, cert denied 522 US 918).

Entered: March 24, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh 132413(54) Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, RANDY BUES, Deceased, by MONICA BEUS, Justices Surviving Spouse, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 132413 COA: 258995 WCAC: 03-000316 BROAD, VOGT & CONANT, INC., STAR INSURANCE COMPANY, and MEADOWBROOK CLAIMS SERVICE, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s March 28, 2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

K ELLY , J., would grant reconsideration.

d0830 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 10, 2007

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2398 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2398

To amend the General Education Provisions Act to allow State and county 
        prosecutors access to student records in certain cases.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 27, 1995

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
          Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the General Education Provisions Act to allow State and county 
        prosecutors access to student records in certain cases.

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

SECTION 1. PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS AND PRIVACY OF PARENTS AND 
              STUDENTS.

    Section 444(b) of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 
1221) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(7) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require 
        a State or county prosecutor to obtain a court order to receive 
        student information, before or after adjudication, if the 
        information sought pertains to a criminal investigation or 
        prosecution of such student.''.
                                 <all>
```
Docket: EBSA-2009-0010 

The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: EBSA-2009-0010-0409 

Interim Final Rules Under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and 

Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Document: EBSA-2009-0010-DRAFT-0635 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-2167 

Submitter Information 

Name: lorra Jatczak 

Address: 

Miam, FL, 

General Comment 

Why can't parity be extended to individual health policies too? 

Most people who need mental health therapy cannot afford it if they do not have a job that 

provides group insurance. They can't get a job unless they get help. They can't afford help 

without coverage. It's a vicious circle. I'm happy group policies finally have stopped 

discrimination of the mentally ill as far as insurance goes but what about those who do not have 

group coverage? What do they do?? 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: April 30, 2010 

Received: April 29, 2010 

Status: DoNotPost 

Tracking No. 80ae373a 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 4/30/2010
§ 230.94 Crossheads. Crossheads shall be maintained in a safe and suitable condition for service, with not more than 1 ⁄ 4 inch vertical or 5 ⁄ 16 inch lateral clearance between crossheads and guides.
§ 238.237 Automated monitoring. ( a ) Except as further specified in this paragraph, on or after November 8, 1999 a working alerter or deadman control shall be provided in the controlling locomotive of each passenger train operating in other than cab signal, automatic train control, or automatic train stop territory. If the controlling locomotive is ordered on or after September 8, 2000, or placed into service for the first time on or after September 9, 2002, a working alerter shall be provided.
( b ) Alerter or deadman control timing shall be set by the operating railroad taking into consideration maximum train speed and capabilities of the signal system. The railroad shall document the basis for setting alerter or deadman control timing and make this documentation available to FRA upon request.
( c ) If the train operator does not respond to the alerter or maintain proper contact with the deadman control, it shall initiate a penalty brake application.
( d ) The following procedures apply if the alerter or deadman control fails en route and causes the locomotive to be in non-compliance with paragraph (a): ( 1 ) ( i ) A second person qualified on the signal system and trained to apply the emergency brake shall be stationed in the locomotive cab; or
( ii ) The engineer shall be in constant communication with a second crewmember until the train reaches the next terminal.
( 2 ) ( i ) A tag shall be prominently displayed in the locomotive cab to indicate that the alerter or deadman control is defective, until such device is repaired; and
( ii ) When the train reaches its next terminal or the locomotive undergoes its next calendar day inspection, whichever occurs first, the alerter or deadman control shall be repaired or the locomotive shall be removed as the controlling locomotive in the train.
[64 FR 25660, May 12, 1999, as amended at 67 FR 19991, Apr. 23, 2002]
“fq Andrew Hill
AY (|| Investment Advisors, Inc
ResponsibleAdvisors.com

June 29, 2015

Attn: Mr. Thomas E. Perez
Conflict of Interest Rule, Room N-5655

U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20210

Dear Mr. Perez:

Our firm, Andrew Hill Investment Advisors, Inc., is a Registered Investment Advisor located
in Naples, Florida and currently manages approximately $58 million for 60 clients.

Many of the clients who we serve include working professionals and retirees with moderate
wealth; and, unfortunately do not have the financial means to hire a team of experienced
attorneys and accountants to protect their interests. Because of this reason, we discovered
that many of our clients were not familiar with the significant difference in legal
responsibilities between Broker-Dealers and Registered Investment Advisors. As a result,
these clients were misled to believe that all financial advisors act in their best interest. In
addition, a large number of our clients were sold high commission, inappropriate investment
products by their prior “financials advisors.”

In light of witnessing past and on-going abuses of “financial advisors” who are not
fiduciaries and certainly not acting in their clients best interest, we believe the intervention of
the Department of Labor regarding this matter would greatly improve the investment industry
for pension plans and IRA owners.

Therefore, we strongly support the Department _of Labor’s proposed _Fiducia
definition of “Fiduciary” for all financial advisors and the requirement that all financial
advisors would be required to act in their clients’ best interest.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

dub

drew D.W. Hill, CFA

Jennifer R. Figurelli, CTFA

President/Co-Founder Managing Director/Co-Founder
#### § 214.518 Safe and secure positions for riders.

On or after March 1, 2004, a roadway worker, other than the machine operator, is prohibited from riding on any on-track roadway maintenance machine unless a safe and secure position for each roadway worker on the machine is clearly identified by stenciling, marking, or other written notice.

[69 FR 8839, Feb. 26, 2004]
**Exhibit32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Paulson Capital Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSBfor the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),we, Chester L.F. Paulsonand Carol A. Rice, President and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of theCompany, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:

 

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

 

(2)  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| August 13, 2003      |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
|                      |   |
| /s/ Chester L.F.  Paulson |   |
| Chester L.F. Paulson      |   |
| President                 |   |
|                      |
| /s/ Carol A. Rice         |   |
| Carol A. Rice             |
| Chief Financial Officer   |
|                           |        |  |

 

----
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 7/19/15 11:24 AM

Received: July 14, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jz5-wjm7

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; 

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related 

Proposed Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-2254

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

I support the Proposed Best Interests of the Customer Standard for Broker-Dealers, The 

securities industry is already very highly regulated. Layers and layers of additional regulation 

would only prohibit the smaller savers/investors from obtaining valuable advice. I want and 

should be able to view clients who have both qualified and non-qualified accounts as one entity. 

We should have standards based on client relationships not types of accounts.
Docket: CMS-2009-0040 

Request for Information Regarding the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: CMS-2009-0040-0001 

Request for Information Regarding the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act of 2008 

Document: CMS-2009-0040-0004 

OH-Betty Culbert 

Submitter Information 

Name: Betty Culbert 

Address: 

Warren, OH, 44485 

Organization: Retired 

General Comment 

There should be some protection from false insurence. ex. Stroke and Heart 

attack insurence, with Alstate. when a clain is Filed they dont pay, unless you call 

a lawyer. and that is expensive. and fraud. 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: May 12, 2009 

Received: May 07, 2009 

Status: Posted 

Posted: May 11, 2009 

Category: Device Association - AS005

Tracking No. 8097bb48 

Comments Due: May 28, 2009 

Submission Type: Web
ExpressJet Airl ines, Inc.

17445 JFK Boulevard Houston, TX 77032

March 24 th , 2011

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building ground floor,

Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am petitioning the Federal Aviation Administrati on (FAA), on behalf of ExpressJet Airlines, for a replacement of Exemption No. 6798, as amended, with Exemption No. 7135, as amended. Both of these are exemptions from § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations which allows the certificate holder to substitute a qualified and autho rized check airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424 during at least one fli ght leg that includes a takeoff and a landing.

At present, ExpressJet Airlines is merging operation s with Atlantic Southeast Airlines and wish to transition our exemption (6798) to match that of Atlant ic Southeast Airlines, exemption 7135 as amended. We have reviewed both of these exemptions and can find no material differences in the conditions and limitations therein. Once the Single Operating Certific ate is issued, the survivi ng Operation Specifications would then have already harmonized exemptions whic h would serve to facilitate that transition.

There have been no changes in the conditions and reason s relative to public interest and safety that were the basis of granting both of these exemptions.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of th is request; we look forward to your response.

Respectfully,

Greg Wooley Director, Flight Traininig ExpressJet Airlines, Inc.

lc cc: Federal Aviation Administration, Air Transportation Division, AFS-200