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

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

In connection with the quarterly report of DayStar Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedJune 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Magnus Ryde, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

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

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company. 

Date: August 23, 2010
ACCEPTED12-15-00010-CRTWELFTH COURT OF APPEALSTYLER, TEXAS3/23/2015 4:28:14 PMCATHY LUSKCLERK
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT (10)(b)


                        OPINION AND CONSENT OF ACTUARY
<PAGE>

               [Transamerica Life Insurance Company Letterhead]

April 10, 2001


Transamerica Life Insurance Company
4333 Edgewood Road NE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa  52499-0001

Re:  Privilege Select Variable Annuity
     Separate Account VA E (formerly PFL Life Variable Annuity Account E)
     Registration on Form N-4; SEC File No. 333-32110

Dear Sir/Madam:

With regard to the above registration statement, I have examined such documents
and made such inquiries as I have deemed necessary and appropriate, and on the
basis of such examination, have the following opinions:

Fees and charges deducted under the Privilege Select Variable Annuity policies
are those deemed necessary to appropriately reflect:

(1)    the expenses incurred in the acquisition and distribution of the
       policies,

(2)    the expenses associated with the development and servicing of the
       policies,

(3)    the assumption of certain risks arising from the operation and management
       of the policies and/or riders to the policy and that provides for a
       reasonable margin of profit.

Fees and charges assessed against the policy values in the variable account
include:

(i)    Service Charge and Administrative Charge

(ii)   Mortality and Expense Risk Fee (M&E)

(iii)  Taxes (including premium and other taxes if applicable)

(iv)   Surrender Charges

(v)    Any applicable rider fees and charges
<PAGE>

Transamerica Life Insurance Company
April 10, 2001
Page 2



The magnitude of each of the individual charges listed above in (i) through (v)
is established in the pricing of the Privilege Select Variable Annuity, to
achieve a reasonable Return on Investment (ROI), which is within the range of
industry practice with respect to comparable variable annuity products.

Except by coincidence, it is not expected that actual charges assessed in a
given year would exactly offset actual expenses incurred.  Acquisition expenses
(as well as major product and/or systems development expenses) are incurred "up
front" and recovered, with a reasonable profit margin, through future years'
charges.  In addition, the company cannot increase certain charges under the
policies in the pricing process.

Therefore, in my opinion, the fees and charges deducted under the policies, in
the aggregate, are reasonable in relation to the services rendered, the expenses
expected to be incurred, and the risks assumed by the company.

I hereby consent to the use of this opinion, which is included as an Exhibit to
the registration statement.



/s/ R. Gene Hauser
-------------------------------------
R. Gene Hauser
Associate Actuary
Transamerica Life Insurance Company
(formerly PFL Life Insurance Company)
#### Edward J. Hall, Jr., Resp’t, *v.*Cornelius R. Colyer, App’lt.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,*

*Filed February 10, 1890.)*

1. Sale—Warranty on sale of horses.

On a sale of horses defendant warranted them as “ sound and kind in *550every respect.” The first time plaintiff used the team one of them plunged across the road, barely escaping running into another carriage, and did so several times thereafter. *Held,*that the jury, from these facts, was justified in finding a breach of warranty.

2. Same.

When the actions of a horse showing an ungovernable temper are shown so soon after sale and continue and are without reason, the jury is entitled to take evidence of subsequent conduct as evidence of previous unkindness.

Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Action to recover for breach of warranty on "the sale of a pair of horses which defendant warranted to be sound and kind for family use.

*Daniel B.*Thompson, for app’lt; *Melville Bglesion,*for resp’t.

Barnard, P. J.

The action is one for breach of warranty-given on the sale of a team of horses by defendant to plaintiff. The warranty was in writing and was that the team was “sound and kind in every respect.”

The warranty being undisputed, the sole question litigated on the trial was whether there was a breach. It is proven that on the very first occasion the horses were used by the plaintiff one of the horses put down his head without cause and rushed away to one side of the road “and barely escaped running into another carriage. The same horse subsequently and with the same driver again without cause “plunged across the road.” The team in both instances was managed by a careful and skillful driver.

When the team arrived at plaintiff’s residence and his family had gone into the house and the team started for the barn, the same horse again made a sudden turn to the side of the road. It, was further proven that during the month of May, 1888, shortly after the purchase of the team the horse again plunged to the left while plaintiff and his family were in the carriage and then barely escaped running into another carriage. The unkindness-of the horse was proven by other witnesses on other occasions.

They all considered the team unsafe to drive, and if the facts-testified to are to be credited, the horse was obviously vicious: and ungovernable and unsafe to be used as a family team. The-defendant does not deny the inference to be drawn from the-evidence, but claims that it does not show unkindness at the time of the sale. When the actions of the horse showing a badr ungovernable temper are shown so soon after the sale and continue and are without reason, the jury were entitled to take the-evidence of subsequent conduct as evidence of previous unkindness.

The defendant gave evidence tending to show the fact that the-horse was kind. The jury have passed upon the question, and the finding is in favor of the positive evidence of facts showing a breach of warranty.

The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.

Dykman and Pratt, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2451

THOMAS J. JOHNSON, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS C. FRAZIER, Commissioner; RICHARD

WAYBRIGHT; GUY GERSTEL; DONALD F. WALTEMEYER,

detective; THE BALTIMORE CITY POLICE

DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CA-97-2470-WMN)

Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 23, 1998

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas J. Johnson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Sara Angeletti, BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland; Eileen Antoinette

Carpenter, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Johnson v. Frazier, No. CA-97-2470-WMN (D. Md. Sept. 24, 1997). 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
EXHIBIT 32.4

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UCDP FINANCE, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the quarterly report of UCDP Finance, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 29, 2009 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tracey L. Stockwell, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
        Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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: May 8, 2009



> By:
> 
>                                                                                         
> 
>                                                                                         /s/ Tracey L. StockwellTracey L. Stockwell
> 
>                                                                                             Principal Financial Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-00-00698-CR

Dayne John Kline, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY, 274TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 2000-038, HONORABLE CHARLES R. RAMSAY, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

This is an appeal from an order revoking community supervision. Sentence was

imposed on August 31, 2000. The deadline for filing a motion for new trial or perfecting appeal

was therefore Ocotber 1. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.4(a), 26.2(a)(1). Both a motion for new trial

and notice of appeal were filed on October 12. No extension of time for filing notice of appeal

was requested. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. We lack jurisdiction to dispose of the purported

appeal in any manner other than by dismissing it for want of jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State, 981

S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App.1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522-23 (Tex. Crim. App.

1996).
2

The appeal is dismissed.

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Puryear

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: February 15, 2001

Do Not Publish
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10.8(a)


April 18, 1999



Richard Anders
5 Brightwood Way
Danville, CA 94506

Dear Rich,

Congratulations and welcome to J. Crew.  Below please find a summary of the
offer.



1.  Position:  President of Retail Stores.

2.  Reporting Relationship:  You will report to Mark Savary, Chief Executive
    Officer.

3.  Start Date:  As agreed, you will start on or about May 3, 1999.

4.  Compensation: Your salary will be $300,000 per year. Your fiscal 1999 bonus
    will be guaranteed to be a minimum of $75,000. Annual target bonus is 25% of
    base salary stretch is 50%.

5.  Stock Options: You have been granted 300 options at $1363.64 per share
    strike price. Your shares become 60,000 options at a strike price of $6.18
    post split.

6.  Protection for Gap Inc. value in unvested stock. Guaranteed floor value of
    J. Crew stock options at One Million Dollars to be paid as regular income in
    the event one of the following occurs:

    a.  J. Crew is sold and Richard Anders is terminated within one year. At the
        time of sale, all options are automatically vested, exercised and sold
        at the offer price. He is guaranteed one million dollars minimum payout
        stock options, net value. In addition, he will be granted 18 months base
        pay as severance ($450,000).

    b.  J.Crew does not successfully complete an Initial Public Offering by
        January 31, 2001. This payment will be offset by future exercise of J.
        Crew options.

    c.  My employment is terminated by J. Crew before January 31, 2001.
        In addition to the One Million Dollars, you will be granted 12 months
        base pay as severance.


7.  Relocation: As agreed, all reasonable expenses will be paid.

8.  Benefits: Cobra reimbursement for 3 to 4 months waiting period.  Vacation of
    3 weeks.

9.  Sign on Bonus: You will receive $300,000 sign on bonus, pro rata payback if
    you resign within two years.


  ________________________                        ______________________________
     Dick Boyce    Date                               Richard Anders      Date
```
                                                                 
GAO's Agency Protocols (02-DEC-02, GAO-03-232SP).		 
                                                                 
This report has been superseded by GAO-05-35G, GAO's Agency	 
Protocols. This document contains GAO's Agency Protocols that GAO
is launching in a pilot phase starting in December 2002. These	 
protocols are intended to govern GAO's work with executive branch
agencies and to provide clearly defined and transparent policies 
and practices on how GAO will interact with agencies in the	 
performance of its work.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-232SP					        
    ACCNO:   A05439						        
  TITLE:     GAO's Agency Protocols				      
     DATE:   12/02/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Accounting procedures				 
	     Accounting standards				 
	     Agency protocols					 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Internal controls					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-232SP

     

     * December 2002
          * GAO's Agency Protocols
     * GAO-03-232SP

                    United States General Accounting Office

GAO

                      December 2002 GAO's Agency Protocols

On October 21, 2004, GAO issued GAO-05-35G: GAO's Agency Protocols, which
supercedes this document.

GAO-03-232SP
*** End of document. ***
```
State of California

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE

Section 41211

41211. The Mojave Desert district is the local agency with the primary responsibility

for the development, implementation, monitoring, and enforcement of air pollution

control strategies and motor vehicle use reduction measures, and shall represent the

citizens of the Mojave Desert district in influencing the decisions of other public and

private agencies whose actions may have an adverse impact on air quality within the

Mojave Desert district.

(Added by Stats. 1992, Ch. 642, Sec. 4. Effective January 1, 1993.)
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10025

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RICHARD SALAS, JR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:06-CR-72-ALL

Before JOLLY, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Richard Salas, Jr., presents

arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d

1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir. 1991), abrogated on other grounds by United States v.

Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir. 2006), which held that a district court

may order a term of imprisonmentto run consecutively with an unimposed state

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 9, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10025

2

sentence. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and

the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                            EXHIBIT 10.10.12

February 27, 2001

Mr. Lyn E. Maddox, Sr. Vice President
President & Chief Operating Officer
PG&E National Energy Group - Trading
7500 Old Georgetown Road
Bethesda, MD 20814-6161

Dear Lyn:

You are an essential member of our senior executive team and I view your
contribution as vital to getting the Corporation through its current challenges,
achieving the Corporation's objectives, and providing strong returns to
shareholders.

The Board of Directors recently approved a Senior Executive Retention program
which includes you. Under this program, you will receive a grant of phantom PG&E
Corporation restricted stock units granted under the PG&E Corporation Long-Term
Incentive Plan. The amount of your grant is $2,250,000 and it translates into
172,285 units calculated at the closing price of PG&E Corporation common stock
on February 21, 2001, of $13.06 per share. An extremely small number of
individuals are included in this arrangement. For this reason, it is absolutely
necessary for you to restrict any conversation on this subject to me, Brent
Stanley, or Tom Boren.

Your grant of phantom PG&E Corporation restricted stock units is effective
February 21, 2001, and will vest on December 31, 2004, subject to either one of
the following conditions:

  -  50 percent will automatically vest on December 31, 2004. The remaining 50
     percent will vest on December 31, 2004 only if the Corporation's
     performance, as measured by relative Total Shareholder Return (TSR) on a
     cumulative basis over four years, is at or above the 55th percentile of its
     comparator group; or

  -  if, at the end of the third year of the grant, December 31, 2003, the
     Corporation's performance as measured by relative TSR on a cumulative
     basis, is at or above the 75th percentile of its comparator group, the
     entire grant will vest.

You may elect to defer your actual award payments under the PG&E Corporation
Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan prior to the award cliff-vesting. Such
deferrals will be made in PG&E Corporation phantom stock units on the first
business day of January of the year following vesting. Awards not deferred will
be paid in cash in January of the year following vesting.

If a monetizing event occurs (i.e., IPO or sale) which affects NEG, you will be
given the opportunity of exchanging your grant of phantom PG&E corporation stock
units under this program for an equity-type interest of comparable value in the
new entity.

Lyn, I look forward to your continued strong contributions to PG&E Corporation's
success.

Sincerely,

ROBERT D. GLYNN, JR.
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 1 1

- 00 356

- CV

IN RE Alfredo ESPINOZA

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 1, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On May 23, 2011, relator Alfredo Espinoza filed a petition for writ of mandamus. T he

court has determined that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Therefore, the petition for

writ of mandamus is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2011

- CI

- 05254

, In the Interest of L.R.E., A Child

, pending in the 166th

Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Martha Tanner p residing. However, the order

complained of was signed by the Honorable Janet Littlejohn, presiding judge of the 150th Judicial District Court,

Bexar County, Texas.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF
 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT
 OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

I, Merrill B. Blanksteen,
 Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer hereby certify that
 NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc.s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
 ended March 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a)
 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
 therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
 of operations of NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc.

| |  | /s/ Merrill
 B. Blanksteen                
| |  | ------------------------------------------
| |  | Merrill B.
 Blanksteen                    
| |  | Executive
 Vice President, Chief Financial
| |  | Officer and
 Treasurer                    

Date:  May 6, 2009The 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.

Note:   A signed original of this written
 statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided
 to NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by NewAlliance Bancshares,
 Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.1

Certification
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Daniel R. Henry, Chief Executive Officer of NetSpend Holdings, Inc., certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of NetSpend Holdings, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

Date:
April 19, 2013

By:

/s/ DANIEL R. HENRYName:

Daniel R. HenryTitle:

Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


---



QuickLinks
**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 Highland Hospitality Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James L. Francis, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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 operationsof the Company. 

 

Date: August 5, 2004