alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Dave & Buster's, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 4, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report), I, David O. Corriveau,
Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the 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 result of operations of the
Company.



/s/ David O. Corriveau



David O. Corriveau
Co-Chief Executive Officer
September 9, 2002
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C

. 20460



# JUL
... 5

# 201t

OFFICE OF AIR;.. 0 RADIATION
Mr. Patrick O'Loughlin Vice President Engineering and Power Supply and ChiefOperating Officer Buckeye Power, Incorporated 6677 Busch Boulevard Post Office Box 26036 Columbus, Ohio 43226-0036
Dear Mr. O'Loughlin: Thank you for your letter ofMay 23, 2011, requesting an extension ofthe public comment period for the proposed "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coaland Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards ofPerformance for FossilFuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small IndustrialCommercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units" (the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule), which was published in the 

### FederalRegister on May 3, 2011. The proposal identified a public commentperiod of60 days; that period would have ended onJuly 5, 2011. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, however, recently announced an extension ofthe comment period by 30 days to August 4

. While we are extending the commentperiod, we are not seeking to extend theNovember 16, 2011, deadline for signature ofthe final rule, and remain committed to meeting that deadline.
The 30-day extension will provide the public with a l40-dayperiod to review the proposal. As you know, interested parties were aware ofthe posting on March 16, 2011, ofthe signed proposal on the EPA's website (http://www.epa.gov/ttniatw/utility/utilitypg.html), along with much ofthe pertinent supporting documentation (including the analyses used in establishing the proposed emission limits and the technical support documents). The proposal was published a little over six weeks later, on May 3, marking the beginning oIthe formal public comment period

. This will provide the public with approximately 140 days to review and provide written comments on the proposed rule and supporting documents. Itwill also provide at least 60 days for other documentation that was not posted on the website until after the proposed rule was signed. Due to the substantive issues specific to this rulemaking, this commentperiod is significantly longerthan statutorily required.

Imernet Add ress (URL) • http.//www,epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable' Pnnted With Vege able 011 Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thank you for your letter. We look forward to the timely receipt ofyour comments. Sincerely,

# J Gina McCarthy Assistant Administrator
#### Doris BONADONA v. Mary Viola Collins GUCCIONE, Leroy E. Kane and Mary F. Kane, Individually, and Mary Viola Collins Guccione, Leroy E. Kane and Mary F. Kane, d/b/a Deluxe Motel, and the Travelers Ins. Co.

No. 61734.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 27, 1978.

In re: Doris Bonadona applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. 354 So.2d 715.

Writ granted.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
MIRANDA GOLD CORP.


Unit 1 – 15782 Marine Drive


White Rock, B.C. V4B 1E6





Tel:  (604) 536-2711


Fax: (604) 536-2788








Certification of CEO Pursuant to


18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


As Adopted Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Miranda Gold Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended August 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Kenneth D. Cunningham, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of her 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 result of operations of the Company.




Dated:           December 15, 2011





“signed” Kenneth D. Cunningham


____________________________________________________


Kenneth D. Cunningham, President and Chief Executive Officer





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 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-110368) of our report dated May 21, 2004,
except for Note 23, as to which the date is June 25, 2004, and except for Note 2, as to which the date is April 13, 2005, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Tullys Coffee Corporation for the year ended March 28, 2004.



As discussed in Note 2 of the notes to consolidated financial statements, the consolidated
financial statements for all periods presented have been restated.



|                   
|-------------------
|/s/ Moss Adams LLP 
|                   
|Seattle, Washington
|April 13, 2005
#### Trustees under the Will of Annie Burges POMEROY v. TOWN OF WESTLAKE et al.

No. 62236.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 2, 1978.

In re: Town of Westlake, et al., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Calcasieu. 357 So.2d 1299.

Denied.
Case 4:06-cv-00066-JEJ Document 15 Filed 01/24/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:06-cv-00066-JEJ Document 15 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DONNA DEITRICK, : Civil Action No. 4:06-CV-01556

 :

Plaintiff, : (Judge Brann)

 :

v. :

 :

MARK A. COSTA, et al., : (Magistrate Judge Arbuckle) 

 :

 :

Defendants. :

ORDER

April 9, 2015

BACKGROUND:

The undersigned has given full and independent consideration to the October

28, 2014 report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle, III

(ECF No. 376) regarding the motion for partial summary judgment filed by

Defendants Vanessa (Long) Yoncuski, Linda Long, and Robert Yoncuski

(collectively “Defendants”) (ECF No. 161). The Defendants have filed objections

to that report and recommendation. (ECF Nos. 386, 387). 

The Defendants’ objections have been reviewed under the applicable de

novo standard. Defendants’ objections did not specifically respond to the legal

analysis of Magistrate Judge Arbuckle, but rather simply repeated, nearly verbatim,

the same arguments proffered in their motion for partial summary judgment. 

1

Case 4:06-cv-01556-WIA Document 412 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 3
Because this Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Arbuckle’s analysis and is

unpersuaded by the Defendants’ objections, the Court will not rehash the sound

reasoning of the magistrate judge and will adopt the report and recommendation in

its entirety. 

To the extent the Defendants raised a new argument in their objection and

brief in response to the report and recommendation, that argument is unpersuasive. 

Defendants make a single discernable new arguments: that current binding

precedent should “be refined to exclude the value of testimony of an owner who

claims to have a specific basis for the opinion but refuses to disclose it with any

specificity.” (ECF No. 387). In making this argument, the Defendants present a

faulty premise. Contrary to their assertion, Deitrick has provided a basis for her

valuation of the property (ECF No. 197-2), and therefore the Court rejects this

objection. 

2

Case 4:06-cv-01556-WIA Document 412 Filed 04/09/15 Page 2 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. United States Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle’ s Report and

Recommendation is ADOPTED in full. (ECF No. 376).

2. Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED. 

(ECF No. 161).

3. The action is remanded to Magistrate Judge Arbuckle for further

proceedings.

BY THE COURT: 

 s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

 United States District Judge

3

Case 4:06-cv-01556-WIA Document 412 Filed 04/09/15 Page 3 of 3
**Exhibit        32.1**

| August                  16,                  2007 |                                                                 |                                     |
|---------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|                                              |                                                            | /s/ Zhenggang                  Wang |
|                                              | Zhenggang                  Wang                                      |
|                                              | Chairman                  of the Board & Chief Executive Officer |
|                                              | (Principal Executive                  Officer)                       |

| August                    16,                    2007 |                                             |                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                                                  |                                        | /s/ Jian                    Liu |
|                                                  | Jian                    Liu                      |
|                                                  | Chief                    Financial Officer       |
|                                                  | (Principal Financial                    Officer) |

----
Exhibit 23.1









CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




The Board of Directors


GSE Systems, Inc.









We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements No. 333-138702 and No. 333-150249 on Form S-8 and registration statements No. 333-161121, No. 333-147537, No. 333-144623, No. 333-143199, No. 333-134569 and No. 333-126472 on Form S-3 of GSE Systems, Inc. of our reports dated March 14, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of GSE Systems, Inc. as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive loss, changes in stockholders’ equity and cash flows, for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, which reports appear in the December 31, 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K of GSE Systems, Inc.












Baltimore, Maryland


March 14, 2011
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DONNA DEITRICK, : Civil Action No. 4:06-CV-01556

 :

Plaintiff, : (Judge Brann)

 :

v. :

 :

MARK A. COSTA, et al., : (Magistrate Judge Arbuckle) 

 :

 :

Defendants. :

ORDER

April 9, 2015

BACKGROUND: 

The undersigned has given full and independent consideration to the

December 11, 2014 report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge William I.

Arbuckle, III. (ECF No. 385). No objections have been filed. 

 Because this Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Arbuckle’s thorough

analysis the Court will not rehash the sound reasoning of the magistrate judge and

will adopt the report and recommendation in its entirety. 

Case 4:06-cv-01556-WIA Document 409 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1.

1. United States Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle, III’s December

11, 2014 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in full. (ECF

No. 385).

2. Defendants’ Motion for Joinder (ECF No. 358, 360) is GRANTED in

conformity with the report and recommendation. (ECF No. 385)

3 Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 258) is DENIED in

conformity with the report and recommendation. (ECF No. 385).

4. The action is remanded to Magistrate Judge Arbuckle for further

proceedings. 

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-01556-WIA Document 409 Filed 04/09/15 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

(18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350)

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Empyrean Holdings, Inc., a Nevadacorporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ending June 30,2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,William Melchiori, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant toSect. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sect. 1350), that to myknowledge: 

 

(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 result of operations of the Company. 

 

 

/s/ William Melchiori 

William Melchiori

Chief Financial Officer andDirector

 

Dated: October 10, 2006
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.37



                                   ADDENDUM #2
                                       TO
                         EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                                     BETWEEN
                             WAREFORCE INCORPORATED
                                       AND
                                  DAN RICKETTS

THIS Addendum amends and revises that certain Employment Agreement by and
between Wareforce Incorporated and Dan Ricketts dated June 1, 1998 as follows:

Amend Section 3.1 by deleting the section in its entirety and replacing it with
the following:

"BASE SALARY. Effective April 1, 2000, Employee's base salary shall be
$150,000.00 per year, subject to an annual increase (if any) in the sole
discretion of the Board, payable in accordance with the Company's payroll
practices as in effect from time to time, and subject to such withholding as is
required by law. The Company shall be entitled to charge any or all of
Employee's salary to Euro Commerce Corporation ("ECC") to offset the costs of
work Employee does on behalf of ECC."

Amend Section 3.2 by adding the following:

3.2.3 Employee shall receive a bonus of 2% of the total gross amount of any
equity (or convertible) funds raised for the financing of ECC. If any bonus is
declared or paid, it shall be subject to such withholding as is required by law.

Agreed to this 25th day of July, 2000.



WAREFORCE INCORPORATED                     DAN RICKETTS

By: /s/ Jim Illson                         /s/ Dan Ricketts
   --------------------                    -------------------
        Jim Illson
        President
#### The AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY CO., a foreign corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Edwin BORTZ, Appellee.

No. 70-547.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 2, 1971.

Rehearing Denied April 21, 1971.

Kates & Ress and Roland Gomez, No. Miami, for appellant.

Kessler, Roth, Sheradsky & Beckerman, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., HENDRY, J., and VANN, HAROLD R., Associate Judge.

HENDRY, Judge.

This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the workmen’s compensation carrier, The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company in its own name against a third party tort-feasor during the second year after injuries were sustained by an employee covered by the carrier, pursuant to § 440.39(4) (a), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Cf. Ch. 70-148, § 6, Laws of Florida, 1970. During the course of the trial a settlement was reached with the tortfeasor.

The trial court initially awarded appellant-Aetna $3,081.50, the full amount of the compensation paid to the injured employee. The injured employee filed a motion for rehearing, requesting a pro rata apportionment of the judgment and costs, in accordance with § 440.39(3) (a).

The trial court entered the order here appealed, which in pertinent part is as follows :

> “ADJUDGED that (a) F.S. 440.-39(4) (a) does not intend to enlarge the subrogation rights of the employer and its insurance carrier under F.S. 440.-39(3) (a) and this Court hereby determines the subrogation rights of the Plaintiff insurer, AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO. to be $2,000.00 herein.

> ifc j{c :fc>>

Appellant argues that the trial court erred in determining that the insurance carrier was only entitled to an equitable distribution from the amount recovered from the third party tortfeasor where the original action against the third party tort-feasor was first filed by the carrier during the second year after the accrual of the cause of action under § 440.39(4) (a).

 The principle is by now well established that the Workmen’s Compensa*115tion Law, Ch. 440, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. is to be liberally construed in favor of the workingman. Naranja Rock Co. v. Dawal Farms, Fla.1954, 74 So.2d 282, 286. See generally Zurich Insurance Company v. Renton, Fla.App. 1968, 189 So.2d 492, 496.

It is our view that the trial court correctly construed the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) of § 440.39, Fla.Stat., F. S.A. Therefore, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

PEARSON, Chief Judge

(dissenting).

I would reverse upon the clear language of the statute and the prior determination of the Court of Appeal, Second District. See General Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Moore, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 541; Zurich Insurance Co. v. Renton, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 492.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          48,036
<SECURITIES>                                    23,400
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,077
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        370
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,960
<PP&E>                                           8,666
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,050
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  82,733
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,073
<BONDS>                                          2,292
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            22
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,867
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    82,733
<SALES>                                        153,379
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               163,099
<CGS>                                          130,880
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,896
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  94
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,134
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,925
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,209
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,209
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17


</TABLE>
**OPPI~E oF7m**  **srroRNIEy aPNeLRAL**  **OP7RXAS AUSTIN** 

**. .** 

.- 0 land, pwohaso lease and parohose ad produoe 

### ohlnery, m%toria1s, and tar0 ot cltratoelo and I ems, mmmltion, and impleevtioleo, eoulpaent aeososary to the nadional 

### artlolss,

6qtlipJllenf 

### Y ba repaired in t&t PSQ 0r any 0f ha roroe0ing 0~ otkemise rsoeessry la commotion thererrith;"~ ( 13 0 . F. I?..1941 aapp.# p. lSG4) By lte~ehirtor ( S 0. IL d4Sl) and by statute 

### (b stat. 

### 846;16U. 8. C. As 

### Stto. 610)the pCmo&al .'..

,

. . .

. : .- . Z’. i


# : 1* : . i ’. I:;.. f & : ! ‘ i. 

### Son. & ?at %&do *Pa@43. - . I I . i -. f . .

### -- . . -a Sk?.

. .. . . . . . : . . . . .. . .

..

. - - .



### * i I : T .

-. . . .
. .

. .
# Employee Spotlight: Timothy Folkman

/ Published Aug. 23, 2017
Richmond, Virginia, 
*Employee spotlight regularly features outstanding non-supervisory personnel from throughout the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation and other DLA employees on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia. Organizational directors may submit names of employees they wish to feature in this column to DLA Aviation Public Affairs. For more information, call (804) 279-3139.  ___________________________________________________________________________________*

**Name:**Timothy W. Folkman Jr. 

**Organization:**Customer Operations Directorate, DLA Aviation at Ogden at Hill Air Force Base, Utah.

**Years of Service:**18 years, 7 months

**What is your job title, and what do you do, specifically?**I am a****customer support specialist. I research, release and reassign customer relationship management tickets and protected stock requests. I also process and correct blocked and frozen sales ordered to keep supply to the warfighter moving. I research and assemble emergency buys for hard broke items, procurement items that have no obvious way to resolve, and no immediate procurement availability, Integrated Prime Vendor items and hard-to-get parts needed to support the Ogden Air Logistics Complex.

**What do you like most about your job?**The satisfaction of solving or helping to solve difficult problems and ensuring warfighter support is achieved.

**What is your fondest memory of working for DLA Aviation?**One of my fondest work experiences was working as a demand planner here at Hill AFB; it was mentally challenging and rewarding to see where your efforts made a difference.

**If you could speak directly to the warfighters you support, what would you tell them?**Thank you for all you 

do to ensure the quality of life for us. I will do everything I can to support you and the warfighter mission.

**What was your first job?**I was a bag boy at Harmons Grocery store in Ogden, Utah, for two years.

**What advice would you have given yourself 10 years ago?**Remember everything you've learned, it will help you in the future.

**What are some of your passions outside of work?**I enjoy hunting, fishing and music.**What is your favorite military aircraft?Why?**My favorite aircraft is the****C-130, because they'll fly through almost anything.**If you could start your life over again, what would you do differently?**Nothing, except learn and do as much as I could and start earlier to make myself the best person I could be.

**What is/are your favorite book(s), television show(s) or movie(s)?**Some of my favorite TV shows are**“**Hell’s Kitchen” and “Master Chef.”