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

 

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cano Petroleum, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, S. Jeffrey Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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 the Company.

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toCano Petroleum, Inc. and will be retained by Cano Petroleum, Inc. and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| November 15, 2004 | /s/ S. Jeffrey Johnson  |   |
|-------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|              | S. Jeffrey Johnson      |
|              | Chief Executive Officer |
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT



CERTIFICATIONS

I, Allan Weiss, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Elderwatch, 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 officer(s) 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 Issuer, 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;





(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Issuer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; and





(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2005 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Issuers internal control over financial reporting.



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 auditor and the audit committee of the Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

All 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; and



(b)

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.



By/s/ Allan Weiss

Allan Weiss

President, Chief Executive Officer



Date:  August 17, 2005
Searched for **http://www.sigir.mil/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.sigir.mil/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
#### ICD Group, Inc., Appellant-Respondent, v Israel Foreign Trade Co. (USA) Inc. et al., Respondents-Appellants.

[633 NYS2d 148]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered August 1, 1994, awarding defendant damages of $808,443.12, inclusive of interest and costs, and bringing up for review a prior order, same court (Edward Greenfield, J.), entered on or about September 14, 1993, which, granting defendant’s motion for disclosure sanctions, struck plaintiff’s complaint and deemed liability issues on defendant’s counterclaim resolved in favor of defendant, unanimously modified, on the facts, to vacate the award of damages and to remand the matter for further proceedings by the assessment court, including a written decision setting forth its reasons for rejecting defendant’s claims with respect to the two series of trades denominated as 2882F and Exhibit K, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The appeal from the order is unanimously dismissed as superseded by the appeal from the judgment, without costs.

The assessment court properly precluded plaintiff from offering testimony supporting various setoffs against defendant’s damages as a sanction for disclosure violations that had *153deprived defendants of documents on the same subject matter and for which summary judgment on the issue of liability had been granted in defendant’s favor *(see, Crowley v Montefiore Hosp. & Med. Ctr.,*128 AD2d 443). Liability and damages are so intertwined that plaintiff should not be able to limit damages through evidence that it claimed was missing when liability was still in issue *(cf., Rokina Opt. Co. v Camera King,*63 NY2d 728). Concerning the cross appeal, the assessment court’s preclusion of defendant’s calculation of plaintiff’s profits for two series of contracts requires further elaboration. While defendant concedes that for one contract in one series its information is insufficient to establish that a sale had actually occurred, it is not clear whether the court precluded testimony concerning only the one contract, or the entire series, and, if so, why. For the other series of contracts, while the court expressed exasperation at the mathematical models used by the individual defendant, testifying as a witness, to estimate profits, its reasons for precluding further testimony on this subject are unclear. It is also unclear whether evidence in connection with both series of contracts was precluded because of the methodology employed; because the contracts, collectively and individually, did not warrant relief; or whether valid evidence might have been overlooked in a factually complicated case. Accordingly, we remand for the assessment court’s further consideration and a written decision on the issues raised in the cross appeal, and otherwise affirm. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ross and Tom, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, William D. Eglin, Chief Executive Officer of MD Technologies Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of MD
Technologies Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MD Technologies Inc.



|                   |  |                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 11, 2006 |  | /s/ William D. Eglin   
|                   |  | William D. Eglin       
|                   |  | Chief Executive Officer
No. 52055.

#### Crown Publishers et al. *v.*United States,

protests 130522-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
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 Kronos  Worldwide,  Inc. (the
Company)  on Form 10-Q for the  period  ended  June 30,  2004 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harold C.
Simmons,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  and I, Gregory M. Swalwell,
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.




/s/ Harold C. Simmons
    ----------------------
Harold C. Simmons
   Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Gregory M. Swalwell
    ----------------------
Gregory M. Swalwell
   Chief Financial Officer


August 5, 2004


     Note: The  certification  the  registrant  furnishes in this exhibit is not
deemed  "filed" for  purposes of Section 18 of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of
1934,  as amended,  or otherwise  subject to the  liabilities  of that  Section.
Registration  Statements  or  other  documents  filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission shall not incorporate this exhibit by reference,  except as
otherwise expressly stated in such filing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lawrence Giardono, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 434]

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Feldstein, J.), rendered October 20, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal impersonation in the second degree.

In satisfaction of a three-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the crimes of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal impersonation in the second degree. He was sentenced to two concurrent terms of six months in jail and five years’ probation. Defendant, who has completed his jail term, contends that the additional sentence of five years’ probation is harsh and excessive given the nonviolent nature of the crime, defendant’s relatively clean criminal record and his participation in alcohol counseling. We disagree. The record reveals that defendant has two prior alcohol-related convictions and that the sentence was in accordance with the plea agreement. In view of these considerations, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
No. 47932.

#### Protest 91595-K of John H. Burns Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the frozen frogs’ legs in question are similar to those the subject of *Pacific Trading Co.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 221, C. D. 610) the protest was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 8715)

Entry No. W-01835.

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided December 11, 1956)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Donlon, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the export value of the merchandise at the time of exportation to the United States covered by the Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated above, with the exception of that merchandise ordered prior to March, 1950 consisting of Fur Monkeys purchased from Tagai Shoten of Tokyo and six cases of Pistol lighters Nos. 5253, 5254, 5205, 5206, 5207 and 5208 purchased from Kai Shoten of Tokyo, at which time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States including costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was the appraised value less additions made to meet the advances by the Appraiser in similar cases covering the non-dutiable so-called (F. O. B.) charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling and lighterage added by the importer on entry.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher domestic value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeal to Re-appraisement enumerated above may be submitted for decision on this stipulation.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, I find and bold that tbe export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for determination of value of the merchandise here involved, except that merchandise ordered prior to March 1950, consisting of fur monkeys purchased from Tagai Shoten of Tokyo, and six cases of pistol lighters Nos. 5253, 5254, 5205, 5206, 5207, and 5208 purchased from Kai Shoten of Tokyo, and that such values of the respective items of merchandise are the appraised values, less additions made to meet the advances by the appraiser in similar cases covering the nondutiable so-called (f. o. b.) charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling, and lighterage.

The appeal, insofar as it relates to that merchandise ordered prior to March 1950, consisting of fur monkeys purchased from Tagai *605Shoten of Tokyo, and 6 cases of pistol lighters Nos. 5258, 5254, 5205, 5206, 5207, and 5208 purchased from Kai Shoten of Tokyo is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 62553.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 268082-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of photographic lenses similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 271, C. D. 1874), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
MATERIALS NOT INCLUDED IN

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (AD) DOCKET

FAA-2012-1014

Docket Number

2010-SW-058-AD

Directorate Identifier

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 34.00.31, Revision 1, dated July 28, 2010.

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region

Rules Docket

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663

Fort Worth, Texas 76137

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays.
No. 53054.

#### Adolphe Hurst & Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60058-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoice should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on the entry involved. The protest was sustained to this extent.
ex4-15.htm


Exhibit 4.15


 



JOINDER TO ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIM AGREEMENT


 


JOINDER TO ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIM AGREEMENT (“Joinder”), dated as of March 6, 2013 and effective as of January 22, 2013, by and among Newcastle Tanker Corporation (“Newcastle”), London Tanker Corporation (“London”), DHT Maritime, Inc. (formerly known as Double Hull Tankers Inc.) (“Maritime”) and DHT Holdings, Inc. (“Holdings”).


 


RECITALS


 


Maritime and Holdings entered into an Assignment of Claim Agreement dated as of January 22, 2013 (“Assignment”), a copy of which is attached to this Joinder.


 


The Recitals set forth in the Assignment are incorporated into this Joinder as though set forth in full herein, and terms that are defined in the Assignment are used with the same meanings in this Joinder.


 


Newcastle acquired the Overseas Newcastle from Suezmax Tanker Corporation, and Maritime designated Newcastle as its nominee under the Newcastle Bareboat Charter. London acquired the Overseas London from Dignity Tanker Corporation, and Maritime designated London as its nominee under the London Bareboat Charter. As a result, Newcastle and London each have an interest in the Claims.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, as well as other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, (1) Newcastle and London each join in the Assignment as though each had been the original “Seller” thereunder (in the case of Newcastle, solely with respect to the Claims against Alpha and against OSG in respect of its guarantee of the obligations of Alpha, and in the case of London, solely with respect to the Claims against Dignity and against OSG in respect of its guarantee of the obligations of Dignity), and shall be deemed to have transferred all of their right, title and interest in and to the Transferred Rights to Holdings, with effect as of the Effective Date; (2) Maritime and Holdings acknowledge and accept their joinders in the Assignment; (3) in accordance with Section 9(b) of the Assignment, Holdings hereby extinguishes Sellers’ Prosecution Rights and gives Sellers notice thereof; and (4) Sellers acknowledge and accept Holdings’ extinguishment of their Prosecution Rights.


 


[Remainder of page left blank]


 




 




  





  











  






 


 


 




	
NEWCASTLE TANKER CORPORATION

	DHT MARITIME, INC.	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/  Eirik Ubøe	
 

	
By: 

	/s/ Eirik Ubøe	 
	 	Name: 	Eirik Ubøe	 	 	Name: 	Eirik Ubøe	 
	 	Title: 	Treasurer	 	 	Title: 	Treasurer	 
	 	 	 	 







 


 





	
LONDON TANKER CORPORATION 

	DHT HOLDINGS, INC.	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Eirik Ubøe	
  

	
By: 

	/s/ Eirik Ubøe	 
	 	Name: 	Eirik Ubøe	 	 	Name: 	Eirik Ubøe	 
	 	Title: 	Treasurer	 	 	Title: 	CFO
SCALE 1:24,000

GARDNER QUADRANGLE

1 0.5 0 1 MILE

1 0.5 0 1 KILOMETER

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Prepared in cooperation with the OPEN-FILE REPORT 2006-1260-I

Explanatory pamphlet accompanies map

Surficial Geologic Map of the Gardner Quadrangle, Massachusetts

Compiled by Janet R. Stone

2013

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 1970.

Map was scanned, processed, georeferenced,

rectified, and cropped by the Massachusetts

Geological Survey.

Map units were reproduced from Stone (1978).

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

(SHEET 8 of 24)

(TE

M

PLE

TO

N)

(FITC

H

B

U

R

G)

(WACHUSETT MOUNTAIN)

(ASHBURNHAM)

71°52'30"W

71°52'30"W

72°0'0"W

72°0'0"W

42°37'30"N

42°37'30"N

42°30'0"N

42°30'0"N

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MASSACHUSETTS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

AND OFFICE OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION (MassGIS),

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION

Stone, J.R., compiler, 2013, Surficial geologic map

of the Mount Grace-Ashburnham-Monson-Webster

24-quadrangle area in central Massachusetts:

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1260-I

Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1260/I.
#### Allen, Appellant, *v.*Kindervater.

Argued October 7, 1968.

Before Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.

*Robert L. Walker,*with him *Thomas, Shafer, Walker, Dornhaffer & Swick,*for appellant.

*Stuart A. Culbertson,*for appellee.

*626November 12, 1968:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Musmanno did not participate in the decision of this case.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7388

In Re: TYRONE LORENZO ROBINSON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:05-cv-03198-SB)

Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 27, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrone Lorenzo Robinson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Lorenzo Robinson petitions for a writ of mandamus

seeking an order directing the district court to schedule a trial

date in his action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). We

conclude that Robinson is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has

a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a

drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary

circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,

402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). The

relief sought by Robinson is not available by way of mandamus and,

to the extent Robinson alleges undue delay by the district court,

we find there has been no undue delay in the handling of Robinson’s

case on remand. Accordingly, although we grant Robinson’s motion

to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of

mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard T. Bryant, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 412]

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (Kane, J.), rendered April 7, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of two counts of the crime of burglary in the second degree.

In full satisfaction of two indictments charging defendant with burglarizing two separate residences, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary in the second degree. He was sentenced as a second felony offender to two concurrent terms of 4 to 8 years in prison. Defendant argues that his guilty plea should be vacated because he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and that the sentence is harsh and excessive, Initially, we note that inasmuch as the record discloses that defendant made a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal, he may not challenge his guilty plea. In any event, were we to consider the merits, we would find that defendant was afforded meaningful representation and, therefore, was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. Furthermore, given defendant’s criminal history and the fact that the sentence imposed was in accordance with the plea agreement, we do not find that the sentence was harsh or excessive.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.