alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.12

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
the Frontier Masters Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby
certifies, to the best of his knowledge:



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



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Frontier Masters Series.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                     
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                         
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Frontier Masters Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                                       
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                                        
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                                            
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Frontier Masters Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund              

Date: November 12, 2009
446 A.2d 688

#### Commonwealth v. Fisher, Appellant.

*606Submitted March 31, 1981.

Douglas M. Johnson, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;

Ronald T. Williamson, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before CERCONE, P. J., and HESTER and JOHNSON, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
J~~~ EO srqT~

s 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

~)If/

o 

~~ylqG PROTSG~ _ 

SEP 16 2010 

OFFICE OF 

Donald C Gadbury AIR AND RADIATION 

Director, National TRU Program 

Carlsbad Field Office 

Department of Energy 

P.O. Box 3090 

Carlsbad, NM 88221 

Dear Mr. Gadbury: 

We received your letter dated September 16, 2010, requesting the U. S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA's) concun:ence on the draft expansion memo CBFO plans to issue to 

add six remote-handled (RH) waste streams generated by the Battelle Columbus Laboratory 

(BCL) characterized by the Central Characterization Project (CCP) at the Savannah River Site 

(SRS). This request is in accordance with the CBFO procedures that are intended to ensure that 

the U. S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) site certifications 

correlate appropriately with EPA approvals for waste characterization activities at DOE 

transuranic (TRU) waste generator sites. On September 9, 2010, EPA approved the SRS-CCP 

implemented RH waste characterization process for the six BCL generated waste streams (See 

EPA Air pocket No A-98-49, II-A4-129). 

EPA has also received and reviewed quarterly tiering reports covering the waste 

characterization program implemented by CCP at SRS and have found all changes made to be 

acceptable. 

EPA concurs that the waste characterization equipment, procedures and waste streams 

encompassed in DOE's draft expansion memo comport with all of EPA's existing approvals for 

RH waste at SRS-CCP. 

Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to review the draft expansion memo for 

SRS CCP. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Ed Feltcorn (202-343-9422) or 

Rajani Joglekar (202-343-9462). 

Sincerely, 

Edward Feltcorn 

Center for Waste Management and Regulations 

Intemet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable o Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
cc: Bill Mackie, CBFO 

Ava Holland, CBFO QA 

Norma Castaneda, CBFO 

Court Fesmire, CBFO 

J. R. Stroble, CBFO 

Martin Navarrete, CBFO 

Dennis Miehls, CBFO 

Allison Pangle, CTAC 

Porf Martinez, CTAC
ERRATA SHEET 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT 17 

FLAGSTAFF/LAKE MARY ECOSYSTEM ANALYSIS (FLEA) 

December 2002 

Page 64 of the DEIS change the title of the table to read as follows: The following table is a 

listing of priority migratory bird species, by habitat type, (Latta et al. 1999). On 

page 63 the word neotropical is removed. 

Page 27 – To the last bullet under Alternative C add... “located to protect important 

habitat characteristics and soil and water needs of the canyon rim.” 

Summary page v, paragraph 5 under the Heading Major Conclusions and Page 5, Paragraph 3 to 

the right of the location map – strike the word partial implementation and replace with 

progress towards implementation. 

Page 43 – Table 6 – Anticipated Road Distribution for Each Alternative in the Waterline Area - 

The third column, Alt C replace SPNM with SPM. 

Page 52, 2nd paragraph – change 940 acres to 1,600 acres and 1,080 acres to 1,180 acres. 

Page 52, 3rd paragraph – change 100 acres to 47 acres and 18 percent to 26 percent. 

To the Literature Cited section add USDA Forest Service. 2002. Management indicator 

species, status report for the Coconino National Forest, July 1, 2002. 

Supervisor’s Office, Flagstaff, Arizona. 94 pp. 

Page 26, add the following as a footnote to the first sentence as follows 

“In the Fire Management Analysis Zone, cover is provided in a maximum of 15 

percent of the forested acres in a Section.” (insert footnote that reads as follows) 

The word “section” as used here, means a square mile in a legal description of township, 

range, and section. The intent of this guideline is to distribute cover where needed within 

the FMAZ 1U without accruing unacceptable wildfire threat to nearby neighborhoods. 

Wherever possible, projects should retain cover-conditions within wildlife travel-ways, 

MSO protected-activity centers (PAC’s), along canyon rims, and on steeper slopes. 

Projects within the FMAZ 1U, should attempt to retain 15% cover within a given forest 

section. 

Dense stand conditions on steep slopes and within MSO PAC’s contribute to the targeted 

15% cover-condition. Cover-conditions might exceed 15% per section due to the presence 

of steeper slopes or MSO PAC’s. In the absence of steep slopes or MSO PAC’S projects 

could retain a maximum of 15% cover-condition to maintain a wildlife travel-way through a 

section. Projects do not have to retain cover-conditions of 15%, if a given section poses a 

high fire hazard to nearby neighborhoods. 

Page 34 4th paragraph – 2nd sentence “The general trend and effects analysis for Alternatives A, 

C and D are similar, however, Alternatives C and D would provide for improved cover 

conditions for Abert squirrel and mule deer.” add when compared to Alternative A. 

Wherever there is reference to FMAZ the reference should include the 1U i.e. FMAZ 1U.
Exhibit A: SOW #1


Exhibit 10.24







EXHIBIT A


Statement of Work (SOW) #2 Addendum












This Statement of Work ("SOW") Addendum, by and between Touchpoint Metrics, Inc. dba MCorp Consulting and lululemon athletica canada inc ("Client") is effective as of the later date signed below ("SOW Addendum Effective Date") and is in reference to and made part of the following:







Agreement Name: Services Agreement ("Agreement")


Agreement Date: June 12, 2014


Project Name: SOW #2 Guest Experience Insights


Effective Date: October 10, 2014







May it be known that the undersigned parties, for good consideration, do hereby agree to make the following changes and/or additions that are outlined below. These changes shall be made valid as if they are included in the original stated Agreements.













	
1.

	
Description of Changes to Consulting Services:












(a)            Modified Consulting Services.








	
o

	
Persona Development








	
§

	
Added 5th Persona, "Ryan", to qualitative and quantitative research, with persona development, the same as the other 4 current personas being developed. Work to be completed by 1/7/15.


















	
2.

	
Description of Changes to Fees, Expenses and Payment Terms:












(a)            Changes to Consulting Fees. Additional consulting fees of thirty-one thousand U.S. Dollars ($31,000.00 USD).







(b)            Changes to Expenses. None.







(c)            Changes to Payment Terms. Additional consulting fees to be invoiced on the following schedule:







	
Amount (U.S. Dollars):

	 	
Invoice Date:


	
$12,400.00

	 	
Upon execution of this SOW Addendum


	
$9,300.00

	 	
On December 1, 2014


	
$9,300.00

	 	
Upon completion of project










All invoices, except the initial invoice which is due net 10 days, are due net 30 days.













	
3.

	
Terms and Conditions:












This Statement of Work Addendum is entered under and subject and pursuant to the Services Agreement between Touchpoint Metrics and the Client, and is subject to all the terms and conditions of the Agreement. Any capitalized terms not defined in this Statement of Work Addendum shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. This Statement of Work Addendum supplements and incorporates by reference the relevant terms of the Agreement. The parties have executed this Statement of Work Addendum on the respective dates set forth below.
















Exhibit A: SOW #1







	
For the Company

	 	
Accepted for Client


	
Touchpoint Metrics, Inc.

	 	
lululemon athletica canada inc


	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
By:

	
MICHAEL HINSHAW

	 	
By:

	
ALLAN SMITH


	 	 	 	 	 
	
Name: Michael Hinshaw

	 	
Name: Allan Smith


	 	 	 	 
	
Title: President & CEO

	 	
Title: CIO


	 	 	 	 
	
201 Spear Street, Suite 1100

	 	
Address:

	
1818 Cornwall Ave


	 	 	 	 
	
San Francisco, CA, 9410

	 	
Vancouver, BC


	 	 	 	 
	
Phone: 415-526-2655

	 	
Phone:

	
604-732-6124


	 	 	 	 
	
Fax: 415-526-2650

	 	
Fax:

	 
	 	 	 	 
	
Email: MHinshaw@mcorpconsulting.com

	 	
Email:

	
aasmith@lululemon.com


	 	 	 	 
	
Date:

	
10/31/14

	 	
Date:

	
NOV. 12, 2014
Before the Second Division,

July 25, 1941

No. 46198.

#### Protest 23455-K of Bullocks, Inc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the mufflers in question are similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 44055 the claim at 60 percent under paragraph 1209 was sustained.
#### MOREIRA CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MORETRENCH CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued March 19, 1968

Decided April 1, 1968.

*Mr. George J. Kenny*argued the cause for appellant *(Messrs. Pindar, McElroy, Connell & Foley,*attorneys).

*Mr. Clifford W. Starrett*argued the cause for respondent *(Messrs. Schenclc, Price, Smith & King,*attorneys).

Pee Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Appellate Division.

*For affirmance*— Chief Justice Weiftraub and Justices Jacobs, Erafcis, Proctor, Haul, Schettifo and HafeMAF-7.

*For reversal*— None.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED BY**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Robert J. Zatta, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.   The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

2.   The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: August 13, 2009                             |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                              |   |
| /s/ ROBERT J. ZATTA                               |   |
| Robert J. Zatta                                   |   |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company forpurposes of Section 18 or any other provision of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 orother document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### ARLIE KEIFFER, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. FOOD PRODUCTS TRUCKING CO., DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

See same case below: 73 *N. J. Super.*285.

*Mr. Albert M. Neiss*for the petitioner.

*Mr. George J. Solcalslci*and *Mr. Bernard M. Kimmel*foT the respondent.

June 11, 1962.
No. 57345.

protests 191248-K, etc. (New York).

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

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of articles of carbon similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Morganite, Inc.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 76, C. D. 1448), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### JAMES L. JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT AND PROGRESSIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

See same case below: 99 *N. J. Super.*463.

*Messrs. Powell & Davis,*and *Mr. Fug ene T. Radcliffe*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Mime, Nowels, Fundler & Gomblatt*for the respondent.

April 30, 1968.

Granted.
#### Stafkings Health Care Systems, Inc., Respondent, v Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Utica-Watertown, Inc., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[635 NYS2d 387]

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in failing to dismiss plaintiffs second cause of action, alleging negligent misrepresentation. In its complaint, plaintiff, a health care provider, alleged that it telephoned defendant insurer to inquire whether certain services would be covered under a group policy that defendant maintained with an insured’s employer. An employee of defendant informed plaintiff that the services would be covered and plaintiff provided the services to the insured. Defendant then disclaimed coverage pursuant to a policy exclusion. Plaintiff alleges that it relied upon defendant’s negligent misrepresentation of coverage in providing the services to the insured.

”[B]efore a party may recover in tort for pecuniary loss sustained as a result of another’s negligent misrepresentations there must be a showing that there was either actual privity of contract between the parties or a relationship so close as to approach that of privity” *(Prudential Ins. Co. v Dewey, Ballantine, Bushby, Palmer & Wood,*80 NY2d 377, 382, *rearg denied*81 NY2d 955; *Ossining Union Free School Dist. v Anderson LaRocca Anderson,*73 NY2d 417, 425; *Sinclair’s Deli v Associated Mut. Ins. Co.,*196 AD2d 644). We conclude, based upon this record, that plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a relationship with defendant sufficiently approaching privity. Plaintiffs single unsolicited telephone inquiry to defendant is insufficient to create a special relationship between the parties *(see, Security Pac. Bus. Credit v Peat Marwick Main & Co.,*79 NY2d 695, 705, *rearg denied*80 NY2d 918). (Appeal from Order *909of Supreme Court, Oswego County, Hurlbutt, J.—Reargument.) Present—Denman, P. J., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.
#### Alfred B. Woodworth and others, *Appellants, v.*Charles B. Douglass and William M. Douglass, *Respondents.*

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements. Opinion by Westbrook, J.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 41 (Friday, March 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3651]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1678-DR]


Oklahoma; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-1678-DR), dated February 1, 2007, and 
related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 21, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Oklahoma is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of February 1, 2007:

Alfalfa, Canadian, Comanche, Dewey, Garvin, Grant, Greer, Jackson, 
Jefferson, Kay, Lincoln, Osage, Pontotoc, Pottawatomie, Rogers, 
Tillman, Tulsa, Washington, Washita, and Woods Counties for Public 
Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 
Individuals and Households Program-Other Needs, 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,
Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Management and Director of FEMA.
 [FR Doc. E7-3651 Filed 3-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
#### Paterno *v.*McGraw, Appellant.

Argued October 4, 1968.

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

*Harry Alan Gherman,*for appellant.

*622
      *Carl Brandt,*with him *Brandt, Biester, Brandt & Malone,*for appellee.

November 12, 1968:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Order affirmed

Mr. Justice Musmanno did not participate in the decision of this case.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAXIMILIANO MENDEZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2447 LKK DAD P

vs.

DR. CRAPOTTA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has submitted an undated document in which he states that he is unable

to file his opposition by October 28, 2005. On October 27, 2005, the court granted plaintiff a

final extension of fifteen days to file opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s November 1, 2005 request for a thirty-day extension of

time is denied.

DATED: November 8, 2005.

DAD:13

mend2447.36den

Case 2:04-cv-02447-LKK -DAD Document 27 Filed 11/09/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 63167.

#### John H. Faunce, Philadelphia, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/6794 (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(h) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
#### EDGECOMB STEEL CORP., PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. RAYMOND MERCANTINI, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

*Messrs. Lenox, Giordano, Devlin & Barlow*and *Mr. Charles J. Delehey*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Peter J. Seleslcy*for the respondent.

May 14, 1968.

Denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald Rivers, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 502]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.), rendered January 3, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the trial court’s conclusion, the use of a showup identification procedure in this case was proper and not unduly suggestive *(see, People v Duuvon,*77 NY2d 541; *People v Smith,*203 AD2d 396). Therefore, the court’s failure to conduct an independent source hearing did not deprive the defendant of due process or deny him a fair trial as the complainant’s in-court identification was admissible.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.