alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.1**
**CERTIFICATION RELATING TO**
**PERIODIC REPORT**
**CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS**
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Arch Western Resources, LLC (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned, Robert W. Shanks, President of the Company, certifies, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:
     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany. /s/ ROBERT W. SHANKS  Robert W. Shanks President November 12, 2004
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signaturethat appears in typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to Arch Western Resources,LLC and will be retained by Arch Western Resources, LLC and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32(a)**

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection withthe Form 10-Q of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc. for the quarterended March 31, 2006, I, Martin S. Lapera, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, tothe best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1) such Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the informationcontained in such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc.
| /s/ Martin S. Lapera                  |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Martin S. Lapera                      |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----
#### In the Matter of the Judicial Accounting of JACOB STORM, as Surviving Executor and Trustee, etc., of ABRAHAM STORM, Deceased.

*Executor*— *liability of, for money paid to 7m coexecutor and misappropriated by him.*

The appellant, Storm, paid to his coexecutor Haight, the sum of $1,200 in good faith, and for the purpose of having him discharge therewith a legacy of that' amount given to Haight’s wife. At the time the payment was made, Haight was reported to he wealthy and Storm believed him to be perfectly solvent. Haight having misappropriated the money, the surrogate, upon Storm’s accounting, charged him with it.

*Eeld,*that this was proper; that Storm parted with the possession of the funds of the estate at his peril, and was answerable for the acts of his coexecutor in the same manner that he would have been for the acts of a stranger to whom he might have intrusted them.

Appeal from an order of tbe surrogate of Westchester county disallowing an item of $1,200, with which the appellant, Storm, had credited himself on the accounting, and refusing to allow him to give further evidence as to the circumstances under which and the purposes for which he had paid the said amount to his coexecutor.

*Wm. F. Purdy,*for Jacob Storm, appellant.

*H. 0. Griffin,*for Oscar Barker, respondent.

Gilbert, J.:

The appellant, Jacob Storm, and Henry L. Haight, were executors and trustees under the will of Abraham Storm, deceased. Haight died in 1881. Upon the accounting of Storm in the Surrogate’s Court he had credited himself in his account with the *500sum of $1,200, paid to bis coexecutor, Haight, to pay legacies. This sum was misappropriated by Haight and was lost to the estate. The surrogate disallowed the credit. Storm then moved for leave to produce evidence that he believed, when he paid said sum (o Haight, that the latter was perfectly solvent, that he was reputed to be wealthy, and that the sum lost was intrusted to Haight in good faith, for the purpose of discharging a legacy to Haight’s wife.

We think the surrogate decided correctly. While an executor is not chargeable for a *devastavit*of his coexecutor, yet he is chargeable with all the assets of the deceased which have been actually received by him. He is not discharged from liability by showing that he intrusted such assets or any part thereof to his coexecutor for the purpose of administration. It was his duty to conduct such administration himself, and he is answerable for his coexecutor in the same manner as he would have been for a stranger to whom he had intrusted such assets. In other words, he parted with the possession of the funds of the estate at, his peril. The : rule is well settled, and it is too important to be relaxed. *(Croft*v. *Williams,*28 Hun, 104; *Clark*v. *Clark,*8 Paige, 153 ; *Adair*v. *Brimmer,*74 N. Y., 539.)

The order must be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

BarNard, P. *J.,*and DykmaN, J., concurred.

Order of surrogate affirmed, with costs and disbursements.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER

OF THE ESTATE

OF MICHAEL SOTHORON GEORGE

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00115-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 2

of Brazos County, Texas

(TC# 15198-PC)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a joint motion to dismiss the appeal because the parties have 

resolved the dispute. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. 

Costs of the appeal are taxed against Appellants. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(d)(“Absent agreement 

of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant.”).

April 22, 2016

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
No. 46791.

#### Petition 6089-R of Davison-Paxon Co. (Savannah).

Opinion by

Walkee, J.

It appeared from the testimony that in the instant case the discounts were greater than on prior importations. The court was of the opinion that this should have place'd the officials of the petitioning company on notice so that an inquiry should have been made to determine whether the invoiced and entered prices actually represented the dutiable value of the goods. The petition was therefore denied. *Lowe*v. *United States*(15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 418, T. D. 42590) cited.
#### Pearce Barnes, *as Receiver, etc., Respondent, v.*Joseph D. Jones and others, *Appellants.*

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by Daniels, J.
INITI AL REVIEW ENGI NEERI NG REPORT 

PMN : 15- 01 36 

Focus Ready Draft 1 / 15 /201 4 
SAT (concerns) (12/23/2014) : 

Re l ated 

Ana l ogs : 

Migrat i 

PBT rating : P3B1T1 

Heal th : 1- 2 Inhalati on, XB Testing (Testi ng d e sired) 

Eco : 1 No releases to water 

OCCUPAT I ONAL EXPOSURE RATI NG : 1A 

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPT I ONS : 
INITI AL REVIEW ENGI NEERI NG REPORT 


INITI AL REVIEW ENGI NEERI NG REPORT
No. 41854.

#### Protests 917327-G, etc., of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 38680 and *Woolworth*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 221, C. A. D. 20) the curling irons, marcel irons, savings banks, and paperweights were held dutiable as household utensils at 40 percent under paragraph 339. Brass base shells similar to those the subject of Abstract 37615 were held dutiable as parts of articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device at 35 percent under paragraph 353.
Note: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this order is not citable as precedent. It is a public record.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

04-1058, -1080

CEMEX, S.A.,

Plaintiff-Cross Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee,

v.

THE AD HOC COMMITTEE OF AZ-NM-TX-FL PRODUCERS

OF GRAY PORTLAND CEMENT
and NATIONAL CEMENT COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendants-Appellants.

O R D E R

Before NEWMAN, MICHEL, and RADER, Circuit Judges

.

A petition for panel rehearing having been filed by the APPELLEE, UNITED

STATES,

UPON CONSIDERATION THEREOF, it is

ORDERED that the petition for r ehearing is GRANTED for the limited

purpose of making the changes indicated on the attached errata and is, in all other

respects, DENIED.

The mandate of the court will issue on December 21, 2004.

FOR THE COURT

December 14, 2004 Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

c: Joseph W. Dorn, Esq. Irwin P. Altschuler, Esq. David S. Silverbrand, Esq.

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

ERRATA

December 14, 2004

#04-1058, 04-1080: Cemex, S. A. v. United States

Precedential Opinion

Issued: September 28, 2004

Please make the following correction:

On page 15 of the opinion, change the sent ence to read: “Designed to enable

domestic manufacturers to contest Cu stoms’ determinations regarding the appraised value, classification, or rate of duty on imported merchandise, [FN8] section 1516 contemplates remedies sole ly prospective in nature, and cannot

after-the-fact cure Customs’ decisions with respect to liquidation, legal or illegal.”
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

                           NAME                           STATE OF INCORPORATION
                  -------------------------               ----------------------
Concentra Management Services, Inc......................  Nevada
Concentra Preferred Systems, Inc........................  Delaware
First Notice Systems, Inc...............................  Delaware
Focus Healthcare Management, Inc........................  Tennessee
Hillman Consulting, Inc.................................  Nevada
CRA Managed Care of Washington, Inc.....................  Washington
CRA-MCO, Inc............................................  Nevada
Drug-Free Consortium, Inc...............................  Texas
Concentra Managed Care Services, Inc....................  Massachusetts
Concentra Health Services, Inc..........................  Nevada
Concentra Managed Care Business Trust...................  Massachusetts
Occucenters I, L.P......................................  Texas
OCI Holdings, Inc.......................................  Nevada
Concentra Laboratory, L.L.C.............................  Delaware
SERVED: MARCH 4, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

ARASH DURRANI 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2015-0209 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2012WP050039) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

· Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 0001 

Arash Durrani, Respondent 

141 Arena Street 

El Segundo, CA 90245-3902 

Stefan E. Sacks, Respondent's Counsel 

Sacks & Sacks 

1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 200 

Los Angeles, CA 90067 

Lierre Green, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, A WP-7 .6 

Western-Pacific Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P. 0. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7117 

FAJ(: 310-725-6816 

ONE COPY 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation· 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAJ(: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. F AA-2015-0209 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W.; Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
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 this Report on Form 10-Q of Summit Financial Services Group, Inc. (the
Company), for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report ), I, Marshall T. Leeds, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
and President of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify, to my knowledge 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/ Marshall T. Leeds                                       
|Marshall T. Leeds                                           
|Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President
|Dated: May 15, 2009
EXHIBIT 21
                                                                      ----------



                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                         ------------------------------





Parent
------
First Mutual Bancshares, Inc.




                                       Percentage           Jurisdiction or
Subsidiaries                          of Ownership       State of Incorporation
------------                          ------------       ----------------------
First Mutual Bank                         100%                 Washington

First Mutual Services (1)                 100%                 Washington

First Mutual Capital Trust I (2)          100%                 Washington







(1)  This corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of First Mutual Bank. First
     Mutual Services (FMS) engages in the sale of mutual funds and annuities.
     PRIMEVEST Financial Services functions as the broker dealer and is
     responsible for the sale and delivery of securities. As of December 1999,
     the Bank has decided to discontinue directly offering investment products
     to its customers. The Bank's investment in FMS at December 31, 2002, was
     $1,425.
Before the First Division,

October 4, 1944

No. 49739.

#### Protest 97812-K of Schear & Schrader (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the balloons are similar to those involved in Abstract 40493. In accordance therewith the claim under paragraph 409 was sustained.
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 OBN Holdings, 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"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the
date indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to 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 Company.



Dated:  January 10, 2005        By: /s/ Roger Neal Smith
                                    --------------------
                                        Roger Neal Smith
                                        Chief Executive Officer



Dated:  January 10, 2005        By: /s/ Larry Taylor
                                    --------------------
                                        Larry Taylor
                                        Chief Financial Officer
ex10-87.htm


Exhibit 10.65

 

 

EXTENSION OF MATURITY DATE OF CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURE

 

This Extension of Maturity Date of Convertible Debenture (“Extension”) is by and between the individual or entity named on an executed counterpart of the signature page hereto (each such signatory is referred to as “Holder”) and OmniComm Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Maker”) and is entered into as of the day the last Holder executes a copy of this Extension.

 

WHEREAS, Maker has delivered to each Holder that certain 10% Convertible Debenture Series 08-03 of the Maker (“Convertible Debenture”) dated August 29, 2008 in the aggregate to all Holder in the principal of $1,770,000. 

 

WHEREAS, the Maturity Date of the Convertible Debentures, as that term is defined in the Convertible Debenture, is January 1, 2016, and all principal and interest due thereunder remain unpaid as of the date hereof.

 

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to extend the Maturity Date.

 

WHEREAS, each holder has all requisite power, authority, and capacity to enter into this Extension and to extend the Maturity Date of the Convertible Debenture.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, each Holder and the Maker hereby agree as follows:

 

	 	
1.
	
Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.



 

	 	
2.
	
Extension of Maturity Date. The Maturity Date is hereby extended to April 01, 2017.



 

	 	
3.
	
No Other Changes. Except as specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Convertible Debenture remain in full force and effect.



 

	 	
4.
	
Warrants Extension. Maker hereby agrees to extend the expiration date on the Warrants issued in connection with the Convertible Debenture on August 29, 2008, which were originally expected to expire on January 01, 2016. The new expiration date is April 01, 2017.



 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Extension of Maturity Date of Convertible Debenture is executed as of the day and date the last Holder executes a copy of this Extension.

 

	
 
	
OmniComm Systems, Inc. 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
By: 
	
/s/ Thomas E. Vickers
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
Thomas E. Vickers 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
Chief Financial Officer 
	
 



 

[HOLDERS SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

 

[EXTENSION OF MATURITY DATE OF CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURE SIGNATURE PAGE]

 


 

 




 


 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned represents that it has caused this extension of Maturity Date of Convertible Debenture and Warrants to be duly executed on its behalf (if an entity, by one of its officers thereunto duly authorized) as of the date written below.

 

	
 
	
HOLDER: 
	
 

	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	Cornelis F. Wit	 
	 	Printed Name of Holder	 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
By: 
	
/s/ Cornelis F. Wit
	
 

	
 
	
(Signature of Holder or Authorized Person) 
	
 

	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	Printed Name and Title if Authorized Person	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	January 31, 2015	 
	 	Date
No. 42941.

#### Protests 970849-G, etc., of Hearn Dept. Stores, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

On the records presented the protests were overruled.
■
	



■
	







	


	





 	
 
  


 


	








	
	
			



	



	
	
			


		











	

 

	
			








		








		



	
	


	


	




 
	
	!

" !#	



			

	






	
		$
	%


		
	
	


$
%	



		
	

	












	
		

&


	

	



'





		(
		




	

		$


%

)		





	

	


&

*	











	


	

&

	


	




*
		



	








	
)






	
	



















	
	$	
	%







	
	


	
	+,	



	





$%






	


 	 !
 
 "
#

'
	

	
			











			
	

,
		

-				










	
	



	

.		
	



)(
	
	



	)&	
$

"

*

	
/
			

			
		


	
	
	




,	
	
	


-,	


-0

		

		


-*



-*
		
		




	-,	&



	
	
/
	-.



		


		
-,











	-

1	
	



	



	$	
&%


		


	
)	
	

		






	


)



	

2
	



	

	

	

	
		(
			
	





	



 %


*


	




	

	



	


		

	

	




		




		

		
	




	



,



	
	







	


	


	





	 
	
	!



	



	
			
	




	


	


	
	
	



3





		
	





		


		
	


	

	







	


	
	
	

*


	



	



	

 !








			

	

	
		




	





		
	


	





	



	
&
4&566& !&0738




	

	
 !
*
	
	


	&


	
	
!

'	

						


	


		

	1'
#### In the Matter of Albert Schnitzler.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by Davis, P. J.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

**ASADOPTED BY**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert J. Zatta,Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 10, 2007                             |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                              |   |
| /s/ ROBERT J. ZATTA                               |   |
| Robert J. Zatta                                   |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

This certificationaccompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 orany other provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

----
No. 46784.

#### Protest 63402-K of Alex Lee Wallau, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Bullocks*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 110, C. D. 441) the merchandise in question was held not subject to countervailing duty as claimed.
446 A.2d 688

#### Commonwealth v. Gelormo, Appellant.

*607Before SPAETH, BECK and LIPEZ, JJ.

The judgment of sentence is affirmed.
No. 61928.

#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 315544-K (New York).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
#### The People of the State of New York, *Respondent, v.*John Petrea, *Appellant.*

Judgment and conviction affirmed. Opinion by Bookes, J., and Learned, P. J., and by Westbrook, J., dissenting.