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 The Quantum Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB-A, Amendment # 1 for the quarter ended January 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Noel J. Guillama, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, 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 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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



Date: September 19, 2008



| |                                      
| | -------------------------------------
| | /s/ Noel J. Guillama                 
| | Noel J. Guillama                     
| | President and Chief Executive Officer



A certification furnished pursuant to this Item will not be deemed filed for purposes of section 18 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the small business issuer specifically incorporates it by reference.
##### 



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
  (1)
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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: March 10, 2006
    /s/ Charles R. JonesCharles R. JonesChief Executive OfficerCentraCore Properties Trust
(Reap. Dec. 9873)

#### American Express Company et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 774560, etc.

(Decided December 15, 1960)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Eao, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between counsel for the parties hereto that the merchandise and issues in the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in Schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues in *United States*v. *American Empress Co.,*Volume 95, Treasury Decisions No. 11, dated March 17, 1960, A.R.D. 120.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the market values or the prices, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, *594at which, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States were the appraised values less the amounts added under duress in accordance with the provisions of section 503(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 and that there was no higher foreign value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the record in A.R.D. 120 he incorporated with the record in these cases and that these appeals for reap-praisement he submitted on this stipulation.

The record in the cited case has been received in evidence herein.

On the agreed facts and the cited authority, I find 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 merchandise here involved, and that such values were the appraised values, less the amounts added under duress in accordance with the provisions of section 503 (b) of said act, prior to its repeal.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# C_2012399EN.01001002.xml

| 22.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania), lodged on 24 September 2012 — Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili v SC Rafinăria Steaua Română SA

(Case C-431/12)

2012/C 399/17

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants in cassation: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Appellants in cassation:

Respondent in cassation: SC Rafinăria Steaua Română SA

Respondent in cassation:

Question referred

Question referred

Is it contrary to Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) if Article 124 of the Romanian Tax Procedure Code is interpreted as meaning that the State is not liable for payment of interest on amounts claimed under VAT declarations in respect of the period between the date of set-off of those amounts and the date on which those set-off decisions are annulled by a national court?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

---
No. 47672.

#### Protest 793078-G of Kloeckner Steel Corp. (Port Arthur).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Wilbur-Ellis Co.*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 403, C. A. D. 47), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1604 was sustained.
FIRST
      AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     

    Brad
      Edson

     

    This
      First Amendment to Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”)
      by and
      between NutraCea, a California corporation (the “Employer”)
      and
      Brad Edson (the “Employee’),
      entered into as of the 10th
      day of
      December, 2004 (the “Agreement”),
      is
      made and effective as of the 8th
      day of
      January 2008. Capitalized terms not specifically defined hereunder shall have
      the meanings assigned to them under the Agreement. 

     

    1.  Term.
      Section
      2.2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide an extended Term of three
      years, beginning January 1, 2008, and ending December 31, 2010. Section 2.2
      of
      the Agreement is replaced and amended to read in its entirety as
      follows:

     

    “2.2 Renewal
      Term:
      The
      term
      of this Agreement is renewed for a three year term, beginning on January 1,
      2008, and ending on December 31, 2010. Thereafter, this Agreement shall
      automatically be extended for two additional one (1) year renewal terms unless
      either party give written notice to terminate this Agreement at least one
      hundred and eighty (180) days prior to the end of the preceding term.
”

     

    2.  Automobile
      Expense.
      Section
      4.3 of the Agreement is hereby amended to increase the automobile allowance
      provided to Employee to $850 per month. Section 4.3 of the Agreement is replaced
      and amended to read in its entirety as follows:

     

    “4.3 Automobile
      Expenses:
      Employer
      shall provide Employee with an automobile allowance in the amount of $850 per
      month.”

     

    3.  Employee
      Incentive Compensation Plan.
      Section
      3 of Addendum A to the Agreement, is hereby amended to remove the final sentence
      of that Section regarding the maximum incentive bonus payable in any calendar
      year pursuant to that Section. Section 3 of Addendum A to the Agreement is
      replaced and amended to read in its entirety as follows:

     

    “3. Employee
      Incentive Bonus:
      Employee
      Incentive bonuses granted pursuant to this Agreement shall be paid annually,
      within ten (10) days of the completion of the annual independent audit of
      Employer. Such bonuses shall be one percent (1%) of Employer’s “Gross Sales over
      $25,000,000.” However, in no event shall such bonus be paid or earned unless the
      Employer reports a positive EBITDA for the period. For the purposes of this
      section, no non-cash charges will be included in the calculation of
      EBITDA.”

     

    All
      other
      terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged and shall continue in
      full force and effect, except as may be required to effect the forgoing
      amendments. 

     

    
      	EMPLOYER:	 	 	EMPLOYEE:
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	
              
Nutracea,
              by __________	 	 	
              
Brad
              Edson
	Its
              __________	 	 	 


    

     

    
      
         

      

        1
No. 53184.

#### The M. O’Neil Company et al. *v.*United States,

protests 766243-G, etc. (Cleveland and Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 16400 the court dismissed the protests.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-27-1999             MAR-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-29-1998             MAR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-27-1999             MAR-28-1998
<CASH>                                           3,527                   2,722
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,570                   5,594
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,426                   1,415
<INVENTORY>                                     22,714                  27,350
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                87,627                  47,493
<PP&E>                                          14,529                  25,639
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,711                   2,306
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 130,305                 139,276
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           79,287                  60,505
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                  96,739
<COMMON>                                           323                      90
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,013                (61,839)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   130,305                 139,276
<SALES>                                        252,337                 107,210
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                          173,280                  81,606
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  335,678                 179,446
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                63,273                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,011                   1,161
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,974                   4,488
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (150,566)                (76,211)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (150,566)                (76,211)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (5,235)                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (155,801)                (76,211)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (5.41)                  (8.89)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
1155 15 th Street, NW, Sui te 1111 Washington, DC 20005

T 202.347.7722

F 202.347.7727 November 29, 2012

Appraisal Subcommittee

Attn: Ms. Lori Schuster 1401 H Street NW, Suite 760 Washington, DC 20005

RE: Docket # AS12

- 16

Via Electronic Mail: webmaster@asc.gov

Dear Ms. Schuster :

Thank you fo r the opportunity to comment on the Appraisal Subcommittee’s proposed revisions to its Policy Statements

.

The Appraisal Foundation would like to offer a brief comment with respect to Policy Statement
2, Temporary Practice , and Policy Statement 5, Recipr ocity

.

In both cases, we believe it is critical for the Policy Statements to clearly reflect the obligation for the appraiser to comply with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice ( USPAP ) , with particular emphasis on geographic compe tency

.

We are all aware of widely

- reported accounts of appraisers performing assignments that are clearly outside the geographic marketplace in which an appraiser typically operates. Although there are some assignments that do not necessarily require geo graphic competence, there are a great number that do require it in order to produce credible assignment results.

While we note that both Policy Statements 2 and 5 mandate compliance with state requirements, neither appears to specifically refer to complia nce with USPAP. Furthermore, we believe it is equally important to emphasize the geographic competence obligations within USPAP that are

referenced above.

Sincerely,

John S. Brenan Director of Appraisal Issues
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1666 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1666

 To prohibit the implementation of certain rules of the National Labor 
  Relations Board relating to the posting of notices on unionization.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 6, 2011

   Mr. Thune introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the implementation of certain rules of the National Labor 
  Relations Board relating to the posting of notices on unionization.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Employer Free Speech Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE.

    The proposed rule issued by the National Labor Relations Board 
entitled ``Notification of Employee Rights Under the National Labor 
Relations Act'' (76 Fed. Reg. 54006 (August 30, 2011)) shall have no 
force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 60803 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

HERMAN MCGEE, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:15

- CR

- 9

- 1

Before BARKSDALE, ELROD, and HAYNES , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Herman McGee, Jr., pleaded guilty , pursuant to a plea agreement , to one count of conspiring to possess , with intent to distribute , more than 500 grams of cocaine and a detectable amount of marijuana , in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and one count of conspiring to use/carry a firearm during , and i n relation

to , a drug

- trafficking crime , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(o) . His sole claim on appeal, which falls within the exception to his appeal and postconviction

-

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

### FILED July 30, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-60803 Document: 00514576703 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/30/2018No. 17

- 60803

2 review waiver, is that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance by f ailing to object to a three

- level enhancement he received under Guideline § 3B1.1(b) for being a manager or supervisor of criminal activity that involved five or more participants , or was otherwise extensive. District courts are “best suited to developin g the facts necessary to determining the adequacy of representation ”. Massaro v. United States , 538 U.S. 500, 505 (2003). Accordingly, our court generally will not consider the merits of an ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim on direct appeal. United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5 th Cir. 2014). The exception is for those “rare cases in which the record allows a reviewing court to fairly evaluate the merits of the claim”. Id. (internal quotation omitted). The “ preferred method” for bringing such a claim is pursuant to a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. United States v. Bishop , 629 F.3d 462, 469 (5 th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation omitted)

. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow a fair evaluation of McGee’s I AC claim . We therefore decline to consider it , without prejudice to
collateral review pursuant to a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. E.g. , Isgar , 739 F.3d at 841

. AFFIRMED. Case: 17-60803 Document: 00514576703 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/30/2018
No. 43133.

#### Protests 353239-G, etc., of Geo. Shamyer & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the evidence it was found that certain items consist of Venice lace similar to that involved in *Littwitz*v. *United States*(3 Cust. Ct. 123, C. D. 217). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained.
#### Abel Jack HARDY, Jr. v. Brian Q. BOWIE, et al.

No. 98-CC-2821.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 15, 1999.

In re Lafayette City of; — Defendant(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW97-1707; Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “J”, No. 94-3587.

Granted (See order attached).

LEMMON, J., not on panel.
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance



 




EXHIBIT 10.1


AMENDMENT TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) entered into by and between
VIEWPOINT FINANCIAL GROUP (“Company”) and GAROLD ROBERT BASE
(“Executive”), amending the Employment Agreement
(“Agreement”) between Company and Executive dated
September 29, 2006.


IT IS AGREED:


This Amendment amends
Section 1.2 of the Agreement to read in its entirety as follows:


“1.2 TERM AND
EXTENSION – The term of this Agreement shall be the period commencing on
the date on which ViewPoint Bank (“Bank”) converts to stock form as
the subsidiary of Company (the “Commencement Date”) and ending on
December 31, 2011, subject to earlier termination as provided herein.
Beginning on January 1, 2010, and on each January 1 thereafter during the
term, the term shall be extended by one additional year such that the term as
so extended shall be a period of three years, provided that
(1) Company has not given notice to Executive in writing at least
90 days prior to such January 1 that the term of this Agreement shall not
be extended further; and (2) at least 90 days prior to such
January 1, the Board of Directors of Company explicitly reviews and
approves the extension based upon a performance review in which the Board has
determined that Executive’s performance has been satisfactory or
better.”


This Amendment
contains all of the terms agreed upon by the parties with respect to the
subject matter of this Amendment and supersedes all prior agreements,
arrangements and communications between the parties concerning such subject
matter, whether written or oral.


VIEWPOINT FINANCIAL
GROUP:


By: /s/
James McCarley                                    


James McCarley, Chairman of the Board


Attest: /s/ Sherrie
Tawwater                         


Sherrie Tawwater 

Assistant VP/Executive Assistant


EXECUTIVE:


/s/ Garold
R. Base                                            


Garold R. Base 

President and Chief Executive Officer
Wood Preserving Industry On-site Release

0.0

200,000.0400,000.0600,000.0800,000.0

1,000,000.01,200,000.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Year

Pounds
Dismiss and Opinion Filed April 17, 2014 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00389-CV IN RE CHARLES ANTHONY ALLEN, Relator Original Proceeding from the 292nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV99-01573-V 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices FitzGera ld, Francis, and Lewis Opinion by Justice FitzGerald
Relator filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. This Cour t does not have jurisdiction over relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. While the courts of appeals have concurrent mandamus jurisdiction with the court of criminal appeals in some post-conviction proceedings, Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W.3d 805, 808 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 2003) (forensic DNA testing), only the court of criminal appeals has jurisdiction in cases collaterally attack ing a final judgment of conviction of a felony. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2010); In re Turk , No. 14-09-00129-CR, 2009 WL 396197, at *1 (T ex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 19, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re Bailey, No. 14-06-00841-CV, 2006 WL 2827249, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re McAfee , 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. pro ceeding). “Article 11.07 contains no role for–2– the courts of appeals; the only courts referre d to are the convicting court and the Court of Criminal Appeals.” In re McAfee , 53 S.W.3d at 718. Accordingly, we DISMISS the petition.

140389F.P05 /Kerry P. FitzGerald/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD JUSTICE