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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of JohnsonDiversey Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended July 3, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers 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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                                                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 13, 2009 |  | /s/ Edward F. Lonergan                                                 
|                      |  | Edward F. Lonergan, President and Chief Executive
Officer              
|                      | 
|                      |  | /s/ Joseph F. Smorada                                                  
|                      |  | Joseph F. Smorada, Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.2

         Statement Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, Donald Evans, and CEO of Silver Screen Studios, Inc., a Georgia
corporation, hereby makes the following certification as required by Section
906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to the following of this
quarterly report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934:

Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005.

The undersigned certifies that the above periodic report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
information contained in the above quarterly report fairly presents, in all
respects, the financial condition of Silver Screen Studios, Inc. and results of
its operations.

By: /s/ Donald Evans
   -----------------
Donald Evans  acting CEO and a acting Director

November 12, 2005
**Exhibit 32.1**

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asAdopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of NorcrossSafety Products L.L.C. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period endedApril 1, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Robert A.Peterson, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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 Registrant.
| Dated: May 12, 2006 | By:    | /s/ ROBERT A. PETERSON                         |
|---------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------|
|                |   | Robert A. Peterson                             |
|                |   | President, Chief Executive Officer and Manager |
|                |   | (Chief Executive Officer)                      |

 

**A signed original of this written statement required by Section906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrantand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.**

----
No. 46207.

#### Protests 794824-G, etc., of Fisher Bruce & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

ALEX GREENWALD, by his legal guardians PATRICIA GREENWALD and PHILIP GREENWALD

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION , Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 3645

[ September 6 , 2017 ]

Appeal from the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration ; L.T. Case No. 15

- 06VW

.
Philip E. Greenwald, Boca Raton, for appellant.

Tracy Cooper George, Chief Appellate Counsel, Agency for Health Care Administration, Talla hassee, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

C ONNER , F ORST and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 62 (Monday, April 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 15674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5995]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. GP94-2-016]


Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Refund Report

March 27, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 20, 2007, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing its Refund Report made to 
comply with the April 17, 1995 Settlement (Settlement) in Docket No. 
GP94-2, et al. as approved by the Commission on June 15, 1995 (Columbia 
Gas Transmission Corp., 71 FERC ] 61,337 (1995)).
    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 on or before the date as indicated below. 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c78182958488a9abaea9a294b2b7b7a8b5b387a1a2b5a4e9a0a8b1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a4e2e1f6e7ebcac8cdcac1f7d1d4d4cbd6d0e4c2c1d6c78ac3cbd2">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 3, 2007.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5995 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* P ursuant to Local Rule 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 Local

Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-20521

Summary Calendar

RUSSELL DWAINE ABERLY, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(CA-H-94-193)

April 22, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Russell Dwaine Ab e rly appeals the dismissal of his second federal habeas

corpu s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The trial court found abuse of the writ

under Rule 9(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Aberly’s first federal

habeas petition, alleging ineffect ive assistance of counsel, was dismissed with2

prejudice. We affirmed that dismissal for lack of prosecution. The instant petition

again raises the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, adding an ad ditional reason.

The trial court dismissed and denied a request for a certificate of probable cause.

We granted CPC.

Having considered the briefs and record, on the basis of the findings of fact,

authorities cited, and reasons assigned by the trial court in its Order rendered June

14, 1995 and entered June 15, 1995, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 4.5.1

Amendment No. 1 to Friedman's Inc. Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan for
                               Outside Directors

       Section 4 is replaced in its entirety by the following:

       4. Shares Subject to Plan. The shares subject to the Plan shall be
          ----------------------
       authorized but unissued or reacquired shares of the Company's Common
       Stock. Subject to adjustment in accordance with the provisions of
       paragraph 6 of the Plan, the maximum number of shares of Common Stock for
       which options may be granted under the Plan shall be 100,000, and the
       adoption of the Plan by the Board of Directors of the Company shall
       constitute a reservation of 100,000 authorized but unissued, or
       reacquired, shares of Common Stock for issuance only upon the exercise of
       options granted under the Plan. In the event that any outstanding option
       granted under the Plan. In the event that any outstanding option granted
       under the Plan for any reason expires or is terminated prior to the end
       of the period during which options may be granted under the Plan, the
       shares of Common Stock allocable to the unexercised portion of such
       option may again be subject in whole or in part to any option granted
       under the Plan.


       The first paragraph of Section 5(a) is replaced in its entirety by the
       following:

       (a) Grant. Each Outside Director who is serving in such capacity as of
           -----
          the day following the 1994 annual meeting of the Company's
          stockholders ("Annual Meeting") shall be granted an option to purchase
          5,000 shares of the Company's Common Stock as of December 20, 1993, as
          provided in Section 6. As of the day following each annual meeting
          subsequent to March 1, 2001, each Outside Director who is serving in
          such capacity as of such date shall be granted an option to purchase
          5,000 shares of Common Stock, subject to adjustment pursuant to
          Section 6.


     The foregoing is hereby acknowledged as being the First Amendment to the
Amended and Restated 1994 Stock Option Plan for Outside Directors, as adopted by
the Board of Directors of the Company Inc. on February 28, 2001.


                                          FRIEDMAN'S INC.


                                          By:    /s/ Victor M. Suglia
                                                ---------------------------
                                          Name:  Victor M. Suglia
                                          Title: Senior Vice President - Chief
                                                 Financial Officer
Exhibit 32





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS





This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended.





The undersigned, who are the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Business Development Corporation of America (the “Company”), each hereby certify as follows:





To the best of his knowledge, the annual report of Form 10-K of the Company, which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 18 th day of March 2014





/s/ Nicholas S. SchorschNicholas S. SchorschChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Nicholas RadescaNicholas RadescaChief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00135-CV

In re John Mark Quaak

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator, John Mark Quaak, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

filed a pro se petition seeking an “injunction with restraining order” in this Court. Looking to the

substance of Quaak’s petition, rather than its title or form, we construe his petition as a petition for

writ of mandamus. See Surgitek, Bristol-Myers Corp. v. Abel, 997 S.W.2d 598, 601 (Tex. 1999)

(courts look to substance of pleading rather than its caption or form to determine its nature); see also

Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2010); Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. In his petition, Quaak

asks us to compel certain named prison officials of the Terrell Unit of the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice to take, or refrain from taking, particular actions.

This Court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice or personnel thereof. By statute, this Court has the authority to issue a writ of

mandamus against “a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district” and other

writs as necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221. Staff

members of the Terrell Unit are not parties against whom we may issue a writ of mandamus. Nor
has Quaak demonstrated that the exercise of our writ power is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. 

We have no jurisdiction to grant Quaak the relief he seeks.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________

J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Rose

Dismissed For Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: May 3, 2012

2
Case: 2:10-cv-00967-EAS-TPK Doc #: 64 Filed: 01/13/12 Page: 1 of 8  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00967-EAS-TPK Doc #: 64 Filed: 01/13/12 Page: 2 of 8  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00967-EAS-TPK Doc #: 64 Filed: 01/13/12 Page: 3 of 8  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00967-EAS-TPK Doc #: 64 Filed: 01/13/12 Page: 4 of 8  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00967-EAS-TPK Doc #: 64 Filed: 01/13/12 Page: 5 of 8  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00967-EAS-TPK Doc #: 64 Filed: 01/13/12 Page: 6 of 8  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00967-EAS-TPK Doc #: 64 Filed: 01/13/12 Page: 7 of 8  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00967-EAS-TPK Doc #: 64 Filed: 01/13/12 Page: 8 of 8  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-07T16:15:08-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
Exhibit 10(b)


                        Consent of Independent Auditors




We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption  "Experts," and to the
use of our report  dated  January 24,  2000,  with  respect to the  consolidated
financial  statements of Kansas City Life  Insurance  Company as of December 31,
1999 and for each of the two years in the  period  then  ended and to the use of
our report  dated March 31, 2000 with  respect to the  financial  statements  of
Kansas City Life Variable Annuity Separate Account for the period ended December
31, 1999,  included in the  Pre-Effective  Amendment  No. 1 to the  Registration
Statement  under the Securities  Act of 1933  (Registration  No.  333-52290) and
Post-Effective   Amendment  No.  9  to  the  Registration  Statement  under  the
Investment  Company Act of 1940  (Registration No. 811-8994) on Form N-4 and the
related  Statement of  Additional  Information  accompanying  the  Prospectus of
Affinity Variable Annuity.


                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Kansas City, Missouri
April 26, 2001
Before the First Division,

December 2, 1960

No. 64936.

#### Reeves Equipment Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 60/9928 and 60/14486 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sound projectors and parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Milton Diamond et al.*(42 C.C.P.A. 9, C.A.D. 561), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### B. Altman & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6344.

Entry No. 718476/2, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, July 18, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 18, 1941, etc.

(Decided September 10, 1946)

*Marlow & Hines*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Keeee, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the earthenware and chinaware here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases. Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**Exhibit 12**

 

**Computation of Earnings/(Deficiency) To Fixed Charges**

 
| ** **                               | ** ** | **As of December 31** | ** ** |
|------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------|------------|
| ** **                               | ** ** | **2004**              | ** ** | **2003** | ** ** | **2002** | ** ** |
| ** **                               | ** ** | **(thousands)**       | ** ** |
|                                     |       |                  |       |   |   |   |   |
| Income/(Loss) from continuing operations |       | $                     | 197        |   | $ | (8,311 | ) | $ | (1,599 | ) |
| Fixed Charges                            |       | 26,606                |       | 27,093 |   | 27,389 |   |
| Capitalized Interest                     |       | —                |       | — |   | — |   |
| Amortization of Capitalized Interest     |       | 2,520                 |       | 2,520 |   | 2,520 |   |
| Net Total                                |       | 29,323                |       | 21,302 |   | 28,310 |   |
|                                     |       |                  |       |   |   |   |   |
| FIXED CHARGES                            |       |                  |       |   |   |   |   |
| Interest Expense                         |       | 26,470                |       | 26,956 |   | 27,244 |   |
| Capitalized Interest                     |       | —                |       | — |   | — |   |
| Other                                    |       | 136                   |       | 137 |   | 145 |   |
| Total                                    |       | 26,606                |       | 27,093 |   | 27,389 |   |
| Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges       |       | 1.10                  |       | .79 |   | 1.03 |   |
|                                          |            |                       |            |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

 

----
#### VIRGIL T. THOMAS, APPELLANT-PETITIONER, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, *ET AL.,*RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

May 25, 1964. Granted.

See same case below: 83 *N. J. Super.*91.

*Messrs. Brown, Connery, Kulp & Wille*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Edward A. Kaplan*for the respondents.

On petition for certification to Superior Court, Appellate Division.
#### Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor and Brown & Root, Inc., Power Plant Division, Petitioners, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, AFL-CIO and Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, Respondents.

Nos. 82-4483, 82-4494.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 27, 1984.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied April 6, 1984.

Robert D. McGillicuddy, Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., William L. Bedman, Houston, Tex., for petitioners.

Terry R. Yellig, Victoria L. Bor, Washington, D.C., for respondents in both cases. W. Carl Jordan, Houston, Tex., for respondents in No. 82-4483.

Before BROWN, GEE and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In its order of September 30, 1982, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission in effect set aside a settlement agreement between the Secretary of Labor and the employer, Brown & Root, remand*995ing the matter for a hearing on the objections to the agreement raised by intervenor International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO. On the basis of *Donovan v. Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers International Union, Local 4-28,*718 F.2d 1341, 1353 (5th Cir.1983) we reverse this order and remand to the Review Commission for dismissal of the petition for review.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
#### In the Matter of the New York, West Shore and Buffalo Railroad Company *v.*The Knickerbocker Ice Company

Three appeals. All three orders reversed, with single costs of appeal and disbursements as in reversal of judgment on appeal, and proceedings on petition and answer remitted to Special Term for further action. Opinion by Bockes, J. Order to be settled! by Bockes, J.