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




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ENACTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of Remote Dynamics, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Gary Hallgren, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and David Walters, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted
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 results of operations of the
      Company.




Date:
March 31, 2009






/s/ Gary
Hallgren


Gary
Hallgren


Chief
Executive Officer






/s/ David
Walters


David
Walters


Chief
Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to Remote Dynamics, Inc. and will be retained by Remote Dynamics, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### James B. HIBBEN, Appellant, v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida, a municipal corporation, et al.

No. 2345.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

May 14, 1969.

W. George Allen, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ronald B. Sladon, Dean Andrews, Elwood Obrig and Paul S. Stuart, Fort Lau-derdale, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

In our opinion the trial court correctly concluded that under the facts alleged in the amended complaint, the contract upon which the plaintiff sought to recover was within the statute of frauds, Section 725.01, F.S.1967, F.S.A. We affirm the judgment appealed from on the authority of Tanenbaum v. Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital, Inc., Fla.1963, 190 So.2d 777; Manas v. Southern Diversified Industries, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 193 So.2d 480; Swisher v. Conrad, 1919, 76 Fla. 644, 80 So. 564; Yates v. Ball, 1937, 132 Fla. 132, 181 So. 341; and Jenkins v. King, 1946, 224 Ind. 164, 65 N.E.2d 121, 163 A.L.R. 397.

Affirmed.

CROSS, REED and OWEN, TJ-, concur.
#### James Doyle WOODIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1036.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 2, 1977.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, and Victoria J. Powell, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and .Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we find appellant has failed to demonstrate any reversible error; therefore, the judgment appealed is affirmed. *See State v. Wilcox,*351 So.2d 89 (Fla.2d DCA 1977), and *Massey v. State,*348 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

The judgment and sentence of the court, while indicating that appellant was to receive credit for all time served in jail, does not specifically set forth the period of credit time to be allowed, as required by Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975). *Smith v. State,*310 So.2d 770 (Fla.2d DCA 1975).

Remanded for correction of the sentence; otherwise affirmed. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.

GRIMES, Acting C. J., and SCHEB and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned officer of T REIT, Inc. (the Company)
hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on
    Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30,
    2004 (the Report) fully complies with the
    requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as
    applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
    and
|
| | (ii) the information contained in the Report
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                     



| |                                          
| | -----------------------------------------
| | /s/ ANTHONY W. THOMPSON                  
| |                                          
| | Anthony W. Thompson                      
| | President and Chief Executive
    Officer

Date: August 16, 2004

The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed
as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document. The
signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to T REIT, Inc. and will be
retained by T REIT, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Lawrence JOHNSON v. Robert L. COPPAGE, Individually and d/b/a Robert Coppage Real Estate.

No. 9652.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

June 15, 1978.

Coleman, Dutrey, Thomson, Meyer & Ju-risich, Jack W. Thomson, New Orleans, for relator.

Sherman F. Raphael, New Orleans, for respondent.

Before REDMANN, LEMMON and BOUTALL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant employer filed a motion to require plaintiff, a workmen’s compensation claimant, to submit to a medical examination by a specified doctor. Plaintiff, who was being treated by a doctor of his choosing, agreed to the examination, but objected to the particular doctor on the basis that this was a “defendant’s doctor”. The trial court declined to order the examination, indicating it would appoint a doctor to perform the examination if the parties could not agree.

R.S. 23:1121 obliges an employee seeking compensation to submit himself to a reasonable medical examination by a doctor “provided and paid for by the employer, as soon after the accident as demanded”. We interpret the statute to grant the employer, who has the statutory right to “demand” an examination of the employee by a doctor “provided and paid for by the employer”, the right to select the doctor he provides and pays for.

Conceivably, exceptional circumstances may be shown to warrant an excep*276tion to this rule. However, the fact that a defendant selects a physician regarded by some as conservative or defense oriented is not a proper basis for denying the requested examination.1

Accordingly, it is ordered that the trial court set aside its judgment denying the motion to require a medical examination and enter a judgment granting the motion.

*WRIT GRANTED, MEDICAL EXAMINATION ORDERED.*

1

. If a conflict in medical evidence develops, the court, on application of either party (or presumably on its own motion under the proper circumstances), can order an examination by a physician appointed by the court,
No. 99-8026.

#### Okereke *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MICHAEL BEENICK, JR., : Case No. 4:14-cv-01562 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : (Judge Brann) 

 : 

 v. : 

 : 

Mr. LEFEBVRE, et al., : 

 : (Magistrate Judge Saporito) 

 Defendants. : 

ORDER 

September 26, 2016 

AND NOW, in accordance with the Memorandum of this same date, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. United States Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.’s Report and 

Recommendation (ECF No. 53) is ADOPTED in its entirety. 

2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 45) is GRANTED. 

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 37) is DENIED. 

4. The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment in favor of Defendants and to 

close the case. 

5. A Certificate of Appealability will not issue. 

BY THE COURT: 

 

 s/ Matthew W. Brann 

 Matthew W. Brann 

 United States District Judge 

Case 4:14-cv-01562-MWB Document 58 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.37

                                      NOTE

$14,000,000.00                    Dayton, Ohio,                  October 1, 1998

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, PARAVANT COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC. (Borrower),
a Florida corporation, promises to pay to the order of NATIONAL CITY BANK, at
the payee's main office in Dayton, Ohio, the principal sum of

                     FOURTEEN MILLION AND NO/lOOTHS DOLLARS

(or, if less, the aggregate unpaid principal balance from time to time shown on
the reverse side), together with interest computed thereon in accordance with
the Credit Agreement referred to below, which principal and interest is payable
in accordance with the provisions in the Credit Agreement.

This note is issued pursuant to in a certain Agreement (the "Credit Agreement")
made as of October 1, 1998 by and between the payee and Borrower. The Credit
Agreement contains definitions applicable to this note, provisions governing the
making of loans, the acceleration of the maturity thereof, rights of prepayment
and other provisions applicable to this note. Each endorsement, if any, on the
reverse side of this note (or any allonge thereto) shall be prima facie evidence
of the data so endorsed.

 Address:                                        PARAVANT COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.
 1615 West Nasa Boulevard Suite A
 Melbourne,Florida 32901-2613                    By: /s/ Richard P. McNeight
                                                 Title: President and COO

<PAGE>
1

Tong, Stanley

From: Virginia Lau <VLau@baaqmd.gov>

Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 10:22 AM

To: Tong, Stanley

Subject: Update on Bay Area charbroiler registration

Hi Stanley, sorry for the late reply, my kids were on springbreak. 

As to your question, the only restaurants that are registered are for the chain-driven charbroilers – including Red Robin, 

Carl’s Jr, and Burger Kings. For the under-fired charbroilers, most restaurants are claiming that they cook less than 

standard per week and thus are not required to cook. The last few inspections that were completed during the recession 

showed that all of the restaurants were below the standard. However, it may not be the case now. 

As to the equipment installation, we are still waiting for the final report from Bill Welch that would include the source 

test results. We require our source test staff to review the report prior to certifying any of the equipment. 

You probably already know that Geoffrey Glass left the District to move to Washington state. He was the rule developer 

working on the cooking emissions. 

Please let me know if you have any further questions. 

Virginia Lau 

Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

939 Ellis Street 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

Direct: (415) 749-4696 

Fax: (415) 749-4741 

Email: vlau@baaqmd.gov
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48911-48912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24867]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and 
Exchange Commission will hold the following meetings during the week of 
September 15, 1997.
    A closed meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 17, 1997, at 
3:00 p.m. An open meeting will be held on Thursday, September 18, 1997, 
at 2:30 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (8), (9)(A) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(4), 
(8), (9)(i) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at 
the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Johnson, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the closed meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting scheduled for Wednesday, 
September 17, 1997, at 3:00 p.m., will be:

    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions.
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an 
enforcement nature.

    The subject matter of the open meeting scheduled for Thursday, 
September 18, 1997, at 2:30 p.m., will be:

    Consideration of whether to issue a release soliciting comment 
on proposals to improve the operation of rule 14a-8. Rule 14a-8 
governs the submission of shareholder proposals to companies and 
their inclusion in companies' proxy materials. The proposals would 
also make related amendments to rules 13d-5, 14a-2, 14a-4, and 14a-
5. The Commission will simultaneously issue a report on its study of 
the shareholder proposal process required by Section 510(b) of the 
National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996. For FURTHER 
INFORMATION: Contact Frank Zarb, Office of Chief Counsel, Division 
of Corporation Finance, at (202) 942-2900.


[[Page 48912]]


    Commissioner Johnson, as duty officer, determined that no earlier 
notice thereof was possible.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact: The Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.

    Dated: September 15, 1997.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-24867 Filed 9-15-97; 3:55 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
#### Gerald Lee FISHERMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-909.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

April 16, 1969.

Rehearing Denied May 19, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal quashed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-03-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-29-2000
<CASH>                                          11,324
<SECURITIES>                                    26,276
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,802
<PP&E>                                           4,786
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,004
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  84,421
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,126
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           211
<OTHER-SE>                                      80,084
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    84,421
<SALES>                                         16,396
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,658
<CGS>                                            9,345
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,345
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,356
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,401)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,642)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (19,642)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (19,642)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.99)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7247

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TONY B. ALEXANDER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (CA-98-106-3)

Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 22, 2004

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony B. Alexander, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Tony Alexander seeks to appeal from the district court’s

orders denying relief on his motions filed following the denial of

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The orders are not appealable

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v.

Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his or her constitutional claims are

debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the

district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Alexander has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

To the extent that Alexander’s notice of appeal and

appellate brief can be construed as a motion for authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. See

United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert.

denied, 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
- 3 -

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Maxine S. HOMER, Appellant, v. Paul W. HOMER, Appellee.

No. 68-1059.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

April 29, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Joe A. TERRELL.

No. 62008.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 13, 1978.

In re: Joe A. Terrell applying for writs of review, certiorari and mandamus. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ denied.

DIXON, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.
Exhibit 10.30




Bank of
America




March 10,
2010







Mr.
Jeffery G. Hough


GSE
Systems, Inc.


GSE Power
Systems, Inc.


Senior
Vice President & CFO


1332
Londontown Blvd.


Suite
200


Sykesville,
MD 21784





Re:  Waiver
of Certain Financial Covenant Violations





Dear
Jeff:





Bank of
America, N.A (the “Bank”) and GSE Systems, Inc. (“GSE”) and GSE Power Systems,
Inc. (“Power”), as co-borrowers (GSE and Power, collectively, the “Borrowers”)
entered into that certain Loan Agreement (Ex-Im Bank-Guaranteed Transaction
Specific Revolving Credit Facility) dated as of March 28, 2008, as amended (the
“Ex-Im Line Loan Agreement”), that certain Loan Agreement (Domestic Revolving
Line of Credit) dated as of March 28, 2008, as amended (the “Domestic Revolving
Line of Credit) dated as of March 28, 2008, as amended (the “Domestic Line Loan
Agreement”, and together with the Ex-Im Line Loan Agreement, the “Loan
Agreements”), and related loan and security documents of even date therewith
(collectively, including the Loan Agreements, the “Loan
Documents”).





The Loan
Agreements each provide that GSE must maintain on a consolidated basis (the
“Financial Covenants”): a Debt Service Coverage Ratio of at least 1.25 to 1.00
and a Funded Debt to EBITDA Ratio not exceeding 2.50 to 1.00.  As of
December 31, 2009, the Borrowers were in violation of the Financial Covenants as
follows:  the actual Debt Service Coverage Ratio was approximately
(1,581.97) to 1.00 and the actual Funded Debt to EBITDA Ratio was approximately
2.74 to 1.00.





The
Borrowers have requested that the Bank waive the above-referenced violations of
the Financial Covenants, and the Bank has agreed to waive such violations of the
Financial Covenants as of December 31, 2009 in consideration of a waiver fee of
$5,000.00.  This limited waiver shall be effective with respect to the
Financial Covenants only for the periods specified above and shall not
constitute a waiver for any subsequent periods or of any other requirement of
the Loan Documents.  This letter shall in no way be construed as a
novation, an accord and satisfaction of any obligation or liability of the
Borrowers to the Bank, or as a modification to the Loan
Documents.  Except as expressly set forth in this letter, all terms,
conditions, rights and remedies contained in the Loan Documents shall remain in
full force and effect.





Please
call with any questions.





Sincerely,





/s/Kevin
Mahon


Kevin
Mahon


Senior
Vice President