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



The undersigned, Guoshen Tu, the Chief Executive Officer of CHINA SECURITY & SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY, INC. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 4th day of August 2008.



/s/ Guoshen Tu



Guoshen Tu

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc. and will be retained by China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.





---
#### VERA CURETON, ADMX., *ETC.,*PETITIONER-PETITIONER, v. JOMA PLUMBING & HEATING CO., RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

See same case below: 71 *N. J. Super.*249.

*Messrs.*Roslcein, *Kronisch, Felzenberg & Mandell*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Lamb, Langan & Blalce*and *Mr. Joseph T. Ryan*for the respondent.

March 26, 1962.
EXHIBIT 13.1

    CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 USC SS.1350,
         AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SS.906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2008 of Metalink Ltd. (the "Company") as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") on the date hereof (the
"Report"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Tzvika Shukhman, Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, certify that:

     1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: June 29, 2009

                                                         By: /s/ Tzvika Shukhman
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Tzvika Shukhman
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 4.6


 


This Termination of Replacement Capital
Covenant, dated as of March 30, 2015 (this “Termination”), is made by XLIT Ltd., an exempted company duly
incorporated with limited liability and existing under the laws of the Cayman Islands (together with its successors and assigns,
the “Company”).


 


R E C I T A L S


 


A. The Company previously issued Fixed/Floating
Series E Perpetual Non-Cumulative Preference Ordinary Shares, liquidation preference U.S. $1,000 per share (the “Series
E Preference Shares”), and entered into a replacement capital covenant (the “Replacement Capital Covenant”)
in connection with such Series E Preference Shares in favor of the Holders of its Covered Debt (as such terms are defined in the
Replacement Capital Covenant);


 


B. The Company desires to terminate the Replacement
Capital Covenant and pursuant to Section 4(a) thereof, the Replacement Capital Covenant shall so terminate on the date
on which the Holders of a majority in principal amount of the then-effective series of Covered Debt consent or agree in writing
to the termination of the Replacement Capital Covenant and the obligations of the Company thereunder;


 


C. The Company established a record date
of March 30, 2015 (the “Record Date”) pursuant to Section 4(c) of the Replacement Capital Covenant,
for purposes of establishing the Holders whose consent is required to terminate its obligations under the Replacement Capital
Covenant;


 


D. The holders of the
Company’s 5.500% subordinated notes due 2045 (the “2045 Subordinated Notes”) issued pursuant to an
indenture, which the Company, as issuer, and XL Group plc (“XL”), as guarantor, entered into with Wells
Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”), on March 30, 2015 (the “Base
Indenture”), as supplemented by a supplemental indenture, which the Company and XL entered into with the Trustee on
March 30, 2015 (the “First Supplemental Indenture” and, together with the Base Indenture,
the “Indenture”), became the Covered Debt under the Replacement Capital Covenant, effective as of the
Record Date; and


 


E. Pursuant to the terms of the Indenture,
the Company has received the requisite consent of the Holders of a majority in principal amount of the 2045 Subordinated
Notes as of the Record Date to effect this Termination.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Section 4(a) of
the Replacement Capital Covenant, the Company hereby terminates the Replacement Capital Covenant and the obligations of the Company
thereunder are and shall be of no further force or effect.



    	 



    	



    


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has
caused this Termination to be executed by its duly authorized officer, as of the day and year first above written.


 


	 	XLIT Ltd.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Kirstin Gould	 
	 	 	Name:  Kirstin Gould
	 	 	Title: Secretary





    	2
#### Stitt et ux., Appellants, *v.*Manufacturers Light and Heat Company.

*494Argued October 4, 1968.

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

*Joseph M. Staniehak,*with him *W. N. Dmsmore,*for appellants.

*Joseph M. Noel*and *J. David Ray,*with them *Ray and Ray,*for appellee.

November 27, 1968:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Cohen,

Manufacturers Light and Heat Company (appellee) appropriated a 50 foot wide easement to construct a 10 inch pipeline for transportation of natural gas. This pipeline was to replace an existing 8 inch line already in use on another easement through a different part of *495appellants’ property. Appellee filed bond for the taking on July 20, 1967. Appellants filed a complaint in equity September 7, 1967 requesting a preliminary injunction restraining appellee from appropriating this additional 50 foot corridor. Hearings were held and the Common Pleas Court of Beaver County, sitting in Equity, denied the injunction from which one of the present appeals is taken.

Appellants fail to point out the lack of any reasonable grounds for the action of the court below and do not demonstrate that the rules relied on were palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable. Without this showing we cannot say that there has been an abuse of discretion and we must affirm.

On January 24, 1968, appellants filed a petition requesting that appellee file a declaration of taking in conformity with the procedural steps in the Eminent Domain Act of 1964, June 22, P. L. 84, §402, 26 P.S. §1-402 as outlined in *McConnell Appeal,*428 Pa. 270, 236 A. 2d 796 (1968). The second appeal in this case is taken from the denial of that petition. Unfortunately for appellants, they come too late to take advantage of that procedure, since more than thirty days had elapsed since they were served with notice of condemnation.

Decree and order affirmed at appellants’ cost.

Mr. Justice Musmanno took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Exhibit 32.2  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 Annual Report of Basset Enterprises, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 (the Report), I, Cosmo Palmieri, 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  March 11, 2008 /s/ Cosmo Palmieri Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Heath B. ClarkeHeath B. ClarkeChief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) /s/ Brenda AgiusBrenda AgiusChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
Martin, Michael (OST) Pp l - QST- - \^ ^ l" - ^^^ M 

From: Hawkins, Carol [Molina] [Carol.Hawkins@unisys.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 7:55 AM 

To: Devany, Dennis (OST); Martin, Michael (OST) 

Cc: nancywitham@colganair.com [s j .., 

Subject: Augusta airport services en -.y^ir^i^T' 

Importance: High — r-^-x]^ 

Good morning gentlemen, rd^ Q 

I am a consultant from South Carolina and have been in your beautiful city every week sicce January 3'^'', 2010 

(except for 3 weeks vacation), i made my first trip here on the day it snowed 18 inches, and flew into 

Portland. I found that not only did Augusta have a wonderful little airport, it also had an auto rental company 

based at the airport that was open on Sunday. I fly US Airways out of Charlotte, being that Charlotte is a hub 

for them. 

I wanted to explain the loss of revenue, not only from myself but from other business travelers as well. If US 

Airways moves out of the Augusta terminal, then a lot of our business will be lost to your city. We will begin 

to stay our last night in Portland, which means loss of room revenue, loss of Food and Beverage revenue, loss 

of car rental revenue and all the taxes associated with those. 

For the hotels, it means 48-52 room nights lost per person, per year, food revenue for those days, auto rental 

for the entire stay, in addition to miscellaneous purchases. 

I have not spoken with one traveler who feels the cost of airfare outweighs removing US Air and bringing in an 

airline that uses a 9 seat plane. I will not speak for others, but I do not think I will fly in that such a small 

airplane, so you will definitely lose my business if US Air leaves Augusta. 

My one voice may not carry much weight, but multiply that and it will affect your taxable income for Augusta. 

Thank you for listening to my opinion. 

Carol Hawkins 

Carol Hawkins 

Business Consultant 

FlexTech, Inc. 

chawkins@flextech.com 

228-233-5335 cell 

803-475-9909 home 

207-629-4281 Commerce Drive, Augusta, ME 

Caiifideitticditi/ JVatice: JAi) canutuuucatioa, and am/ fi£ei attached, cantaun canfidetttUd ittpxtmatiim that inay, Ge pxuiiCeqed. She. 

inpvunation w intatded (»i(if fa% the cue vf, the. indwiduai(> ) o-x entUy. ta which it b addxe^ied. Jf. yxui wtz nat tlie uttended xecipiettt, 

Mty, diiclo^UMe, diiVuSutian at the tahiitq ef atuf. acUan in >ie£iance upan tAL> cammunicatwn ii pwhiSUed and tnaif, 6e tuitawful. 3^ 

ijMt Haiie teceUied this cemmiuiiccUuut in evcax, pCeate notify the iendex immediateti/. d^ xepiy, e-mait and dutxotf, the oHiffinai 

inp)>umitii>n. JAanh ifoiu
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5080]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>10796]


Missouri Disaster <greek-i>MO-00009; Declaration of Economic 
Injury

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan 
(EIDL) declaration for the State of Missouri, dated 03/13/07.
    Incident: Severe Winter Storms.
    Incident Period: 11/30/2006 through 12/02/2006.
    Effective Date: 03/13/07.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/01/2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of an Economic Injury declaration 
for the State of Missouri dated 02/01/2007, is hereby amended to 
include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties: St. Charles.
Contiguous Counties:
    Illinois: Calhoun, Jersey, Madison.
    Missouri: Franklin, Lincoln, St. Louis, Warren.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59002.)

    Dated: March 13, 2007.
Steven C. Preston,
Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E7-5080 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7657

KORELL ROBERT FLOYD BATTLE, a/k/a Korell Battle, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

SHERIFF JAMES R. METTS, Lexington County Detention Center, 

LCDC; SERGEANT SCOTT MCDERMOTH, Lexington County Detention 

Center; CAPTAIN O’NIEL, a/k/a Captain O’Neill, Lexington 

County Detention Center; SERGEANT BATES, Lexington County 

Detention Center, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:07-cv-00466-GRA) 

Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 22, 2009 

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Korell Robert Floyd Battle, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel C. Plyler, 

DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Korell Robert Floyd Battle appeals the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) 

complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Battle v. Metts, No. 8:07-cv-00466-GRA (D.S.C. 

July 8, 2008). 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. 

AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v EDWARD C. TERRY, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

16 USCMA 192, 36 CMR 348

No. 19,185

April 8, 1966

*Captain L. G. Bohlen,°*USMC, argued the cause for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel J. E. Hanthorn,*USMC, argued the cause for Appellee, United States. *Major Paul F. Henderson, Jr.,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

FERGUSON, Judge:

Tried before a general court-martial convened by the Commanding General, Third Marine Division, the accused was found guilty of causing a false alarm in the presence of the enemy by needlessly and without authority detonating a hand grenade in a Marine Compound, and wrongful and willful discharge of a hand grenade under circumstances such as to endanger human life, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 99, 10 USC § 899, and Article 134, 10 USC § 934, respectively. He was found guilty and sentenced to dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and to be confined at hard labor for four years. The convening authority reduced the adjudged punishment to bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement at hard labor for one year. The board of review affirmed, and we granted accused’s petition for review on the Issue whether Colonel Andrew I. Lyman, ordinarily the Division Chief of Staff but then purporting to be the Commanding Officer, Third Marine Division, was empowered to act on the record of trial as convening authority.

Our decision in United States v Kugima, 16 USCMA 183, 36 CMR 339, disposes of the question before us. For the reasons set forth therein, it is apparent that Colonel Lyman was, on the date of his action herein, the Commanding Officer of the Division within the meaning of Code, supra, Articles 22 and 60, 10 USC §§ 822, 860.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Kil-DAY concur.
2014.12.31_Exhibit 10.22.1






Exhibit 10.24.1







Jack W. Schuler
28161 North Keith Drive
Lake Forest, Illinois 60045


February 4, 2014


Re:  Confidential Disclosure Agreement dated February 6, 2013


Dear Jack:


We would like to extend the term of the above-referenced Confidential Disclosure Agreement between you and Metabolix, Inc. for an additional term of one (1) year ending on February 6, 2015. If you agree to this extension, please so indicate by signing below and return a copy of this letter to my attention.


	
				
	 
	METABOLIX, INC.

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:
	 
	/s/ Sarah P. Cecil

	 
	Name:
	 
	Sarah P. Cecil

	 
	Title:
	 
	General Counsel






Accepted and agreed:


	
			
	/s/ Jack W. Schuler
	 

	Jack W. Schuler
	 

	 
	 

	Date:
	2/5/14
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 21

- 20475

Spring Branch Independent School District,

Plaintiff

— Appellant/Cross

-

Appellee ,

versus
O. W., by next friend Hannah W.,

Defendant

— Appellee/Cross

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16

- CV

- 2643

Before Stewart, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : * Having reviewed the record and briefs , we order this appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

. The district court ’s decision on appeal considered the parties ’ arguments and concluded by remand ing the proceedings to an administrative office r to determine an appropriate compensatory award

. At the end of the decision, the district court explicitly ordered that “this case be

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 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 cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 4, 2022 Ly le W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-20475 Document: 00516534547 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2022No. 21

- 20475

2 ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED

. ” It also stated that “[i]f either party decides to appeal the [administrative officer ’s ] determination, that party may move to reinstate the case on the court’s active docket.” Neither party raises jurisdiction as an issue in this case . Indeed, both parties assert that this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291

. However , “[o]ur court has an independent duty to examine the basis of its jurisdiction.” Feld Motor Sports, Inc. v. Traxxas, L.P ., 861 F.3d 591, 595 (5th Cir. 2017). U nder § 1291 , our jurisdiction “ extends only to ‘final decisions’ of the district courts.” Cook v. City of Tyler , 974 F.3d 537, 539 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam). T h is court has held that administrative closures do not meet this finality requirement

. See Gross v. Keen Grp. S ols., L.L.C ., 18 F.4th 836, 840 (5th Cir. 2021) (“It is well established that administrative closures cannot serve as the basis for appellate jurisdiction.” (citations omitted) ) ; S.
L a. Cement, Inc. v. Van Aalst Bulk Handling, B.V. , 383 F.3d 297, 302 (5th Cir. 2004) (“ [W] e hold that administratively closing a case is not a dismissal or final decision

. ”). This is especially so here where the district court expressly provides that the part ies can move to reopen the case on its active docket. See Sentry Select Ins

. Co

. v. Ruiz , 770 F. App’x 689, 690 (5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) ( “ B y administratively closing the case, the district court retains jurisdiction, meaning it can ‘reopen the case

— either on its own or at the request of a party

— at any time.’ ‘[R]eservation of jurisdiction . . . precludes appellate jurisdiction because an order framed this way is not a final judgment.’” (citations and quotations omitted) )

. We thus lack jurisdicti on to review this appeal. Case: 21-20475 Document: 00516534547 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2022
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. RP01-245-022] 

Take notice that on March 9, 2007, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume NO. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, with the proposed effective date of the tariff sheets are March 1, 2007 and April 1, 2007. 

Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. 

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                 

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov,*                     using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,*                     or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

Philis J. Posey, 

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. E7-5016 Filed 3-19-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P