alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32





              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 on Form 10-Q of Con-way Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas W.
Stotlar, 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 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m 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.


Dated:  May 8, 2009



/s/  Douglas W. Stotlar
------------------------
Name:Douglas W. Stotlar
Title:Chief Executive Officer








                                                                   Exhibit 32



              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 on Form 10-Q of Con-way Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen L.
Bruffett, Chief Financial 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 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m 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.


Dated:  May 8, 2009


/s/  Stephen L. Bruffett
-------------------------
Name:Stephen L. Bruffett
Title:Chief Financial Officer
#### Charles POLITE and Joe Nathan Massey v. STATE.

No. 38298.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 217 So.2d 580.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1126-1127]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-326]


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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of the 
meeting of the following National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel.
    The meeting will be open to the public to provide concept review of 
proposed contract or grant solicitations.
    Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as 
sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should 
inform the Contract Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    Name of Panel: Opportunities and Obstacles to Genetic Research 
in NHLBI Clinical Studies.
    Dates of Meeting: February 5, 1997.

[[Page 1127]]

    Time of Meeting: 8:00 a.m.
    Place of Meeting: Holiday Inn Georgetown, 2101 Wisconsin Avenue, 
Washington, D.C. 20007.
    Agenda: Discussion of Future Initiatives with Emphasis on Stored 
Samples for Genetic Research.
    Contact Person: Susan E. Old, Ph.D., NHLBI/DHVD, Two Rockledge 
Center, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Rm. 9150, MSC 7940, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892, (301) 435-0560.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs Nos. 93.837, Heart 
and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; and 
93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes 
of Health)

    Dated: December 30, 1996.
Paula N. Hayes,
Acting Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-326 Filed 1-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Rita CAVALLARO, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. CITY OF EDMONDSON; David C. Turner, Edmondson Police Officer; Edgar Cox, Edmondson Police Chief; Patricia Henderson, Mayor of Edmondson, AR, Defendants, CRITTENDEN COUNTY, Arkansas; Richard Busby, Crittenden County Sheriff, Defendants—Appellants, STATE of Arkansas, Defendant, SHELBY COUNTY HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, doing business as Regional Medical Center, Claimant.

No. 02-1153.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted June 28, 2002.

Filed Aug. 30, 2002.

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The District Court denied Sheriff Richard Busby’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Busby appeals. We reverse.

The plaintiff in this case is Rita Cavalla-ro, the wife of the late Leo Cavallaro, who died after an altercation with a police officer employed by the city of Edmondson, Arkansas. The altercation occurred during a traffic stop made by the city police officer a short distance outside the city’s territorial jurisdiction. Mrs. Cavallaro contends that Sheriff Busby, the sheriff of Crittenden County, who had no personal involvement in the incident, breached a duty, in violation of the Constitution of the United States, to protect Mr. Cavallaro from the exercise of authority by city police officers outside the city limits.

The city police officer in question was not an employee of Crittenden County. Sheriff Busby was not involved in the hiring, training, or supervision of city police officers, nor did he establish policies or *71procedures for the city police department. The most that can be said, giving the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences, is that Sheriff Busby was aware that city police officers sometimes followed traffic violators from the city into the county and made traffic stops outside the city limits. We have not been cited to any authority, and we have found none, for the proposition that a county sheriff has a duty to protect motorists from such a practice. Moreover, even if we were somehow to find that such a duty existed and, further, that a sheriffs failure to fulfill that duty in circumstances such as those present in this case amounted to a violation of the Constitution, our decision would be a matter of first impression and thus it could not be said that the law was clearly established at the time of the events giving rise to the lawsuit. *See Mitchell v. Forsyth,*472 U.S. 511, 526, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”).

The order of the District Court is reversed and the ease is remanded for the entry of an order granting Sheriff Busby’s motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31126]

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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Mathematical Sciences; Notice of 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Mathematical Sciences (1204).
    Date and Time: December 18 to 20, 1997.
    Place: Room 1020 National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Lloyd Douglas, Infrastructure Program, Program 
Officer, room 1025 National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 306-1874.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning applications submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals concerning the 
Interdisciplinary Grants in the Mathematical Sciences Program, as 
part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason For Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: November 21, 1997.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-31126 Filed 11-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
```
#### Jack G. HEATH, Paul E. Sinram and City of Lighthouse Point, Florida, Appellants, v. William FARISH, Appellee.

No. 69-195.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Nov. 25, 1969.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; James F. Minnet, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### In the Matter of Jason Pena, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[734 NYS2d 744]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit fighting, violent conduct, assault on another inmate and possession of a weapon. Included in the evidence presented at petitioner’s disciplinary hearing were two detailed misbehavior reports and the testimony of the correction officers who authored them. The coauthors of the first report testified that they observed petitioner fighting with another inmate and making what appeared to be stabbing motions in the inmate’s direction. After the officers broke up the fight, petitioner ran into his cell where he was seen throwing something in the toilet. The second inmate was taken to the infirmary where he was treated for stab wounds. The officer who wrote the second misbehavior report testified that after the fight, he conducted a search of petitioner’s cell where he found a five-inch long, sharpened metal shank in the toilet.

We find that substantial evidence supports the determination of petitioner’s guilt *(see, Matter of Lunney v Selsky,*275 *625AD2d 820; *Matter of Cruz v Selsky,*264 AD2d 884). The exculpatory testimony given by petitioner and his inmate witnesses, in which it was averred that petitioner had not been assaulting the inmate victim but had been attempting to protect him from an assault perpetrated by a third inmate, presented issues of credibility that the Hearing Officer was free to resolve against petitioner *(see, Matter of Melendez v Goord,*285 AD2d 782; *Matter of Ramirez v Goord,*258 AD2d 785). The remaining issues raised by petitioner, including his assertion that the determination under review was tainted by procedural errors and Hearing Officer bias, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
#### LORAL FAIRCHILD CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPANY, LTD., Matsushita Electric Corporation of America, Victor Company of Japan, Ltd., and U.S. JVC Corp., and Sony Corporation of America, Sony Corporation, Gold Star Electronic International, Goldstar Col., Ltd., Nikon Corporation, and Nikon, Inc., and Canon U.S.A., Inc., Canon, Inc., Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd., and Fuji Photo Film U.S.A. Inc., and Mitsubishi Electric Corp. and Mitsubishi Electric Sales America, Inc., and National Semiconductor Corporation and Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, and Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America, Inc., Toshiba America Consumer Products, Inc., Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc., and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., and NEC America, Inc., NEC Technologies, Inc., and Nippon Electric Company, Ltd., and Murata Business Systems, Inc. and Murata Machinery, Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-1363.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 2, 2002.

ON MOTION

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of Loral Fairchild Corporation’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal, and Hitachi Home Electronics (America), Inc.’s motion to reform the caption,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion to dismiss is granted.

(2) The motion to reform the caption is granted and the revised official caption is reflected above.

(3) All parties shall bear their own costs.
#### J. A. CANTOR ASSOCIATES, INC., d/b/a Seaboard Life Medical Building, Appellant, v. Joseph FURNARI and Joseph-Waverly Arms, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. 70-559.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 30, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
## Salt River Electric



# Distribution Transformer Installed kVA versus System Peak Load **Served by those Transformers** General Information

1. The portion of the System Peak Load directly associated with load served through Distribution Transformers owned by the Utility has been determined. 2. Aggregated Distribution Transformer kVA capacity has been determined. 3. System Peak Load is measured in kW, but is calculated in kVA at a Power Factor of 92%. 4. Most of the System load, other than above, serves Industrial Customers at high voltage delivery and these Customers are not relevant to this calculation. Calculation System Peak Load

serving Distribution Customers with Distribution Transformers: 216,184

Distribution Transformer kVA capacity installed: 735,884.0 Ratio of Distribution Transformer capacity to System Peak Load serving load on Distribution Transformers: 

## 3.40 Average Distribution Transformer Loading on System Peak: 

## 29%
Peak load on individual transformers does not necessarily occur at the same time as the System Peak. However, there is certainly a major contribution to the System Peak from the individual distribution-transformer loads even if they are not peaking during the same hour as the System Peak occurrs. Utilities usually use a Responsibility Factor when purchasing transformers that estimates the contribution of the transformer peak load to the System Peak Load . This factor is usually between 0.85 and 0.95. Research is being conducted to determine patterns of loading through advanced meter reading data from Turtle meters. Every 27 hours, the turtle reports the energy used by indivdual consumers and their 15-minute peak demand during that period of time. This information should provide data that can be used to estimate the shape the load on anhour-by-hour basis for individual customers, and that information should then be useful to estimate load patterns of the

individual transformer loads for various types of customers.

# Distribution Transformer Installed kVA versus System Peak Load

24-Oct-11 Tsharp load served through Distribution Transformers owned by the Utility has been determined. 3. System Peak Load is measured in kW, but is calculated in kVA at a Power Factor of 4. Most of the System load, other than above, serves Industrial Customers at high voltage delivery

kVA

kVA

Peak load on individual transformers does not necessarily occur at the same time as the System Peak. However, there is certainly a major contribution to the System Peak from the individual distribution-transformer loads even if they are not peaking Utilities usually use a Responsibility Factor when purchasing transformers that estimates the contribution of the transformer Research is being conducted to determine patterns of loading through advanced meter reading data from Turtle meters. Every 27 hours, the turtle reports the energy used by indivdual consumers and their 15-minute peak demand during that period of time. This information should provide data that can be used to estimate the shape the load on anhour-by-hour basis for individual customers, and that information should then be useful to estimate load patterns of the
#### E. S. REASONER, Appellant, v. Allen W. COOK and Mildred A. Cook, husband and wife, Appellees.

No. 40380.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 12, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Sooner Holdings,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007 (the
"Report"), I, R.C. Cunningham II, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify that to my knowledge:

               (1) The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.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:  January 11, 2008

                                                     /s/ R.C. Cunningham II
                                                     ----------------------
                                                     R.C. Cunningham II
                                                     Chief Executive Officer


     The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350) and is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.




                                                                      Exhibit 32
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
EXHIBIT 32.0 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Members of the Office of the Chief
Executive and Chief Financial Officer of CPI Corp., a Delaware corporation (the
Company), do hereby certify that: (1)
  The
  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 13, 2004 (the
  Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
  The
  information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
  respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the
  Company.  /s/ David M.
  Meyer
  
  /s/ Gary W.
  DouglassDavid M.
  Meyer
  
  Gary W.
  DouglassChairman of
  the Board of Directors
  and  Member of the Office of the
  Chief Executive
  
  Executive
  Vice President, Finance
  and Chief Financial Officer and
  Member of the Office of the Chief
  Executive  /s/ Jack
  KringsJack KringsPresident
  and Chief Operating Officer andMember of
  the Office of the Chief Executive  Date: December 28, 2004
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Nuevo Energy Company:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
33-43329) on Form S-8, registration statement (No. 33-70108) on Form S-8,
registration statement (No. 333-21063) on Form S-8, registration statement (No.
333-51211) on Form S-8, registration statement (No. 333-51217) on Form S-8,
registration statement (No. 333-51231) on Form S-8, registration statement (No.
333-16231) on Form S-3 and registration statement (No. 333-90235) on Form S-4 of
Nuevo Energy Company of our report dated February 10, 2000, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Nuevo Energy Company and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated statements or
operations, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1999, which report appears in
the December 31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of Nuevo Energy Company.




                                                  KPMG LLP



Houston, Texas
March 29, 2000
#### Forrest YAEGER, Petitioner, v. LORA REALTY, INC., a Florida corporation; Frank D. Tolin d/b/a Frank D. Tolin Construction Company, et al., Respondents.

No. 43960.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 11, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

McCAIN, J., dissents.
#### Luzine ATHEY, Petitioner, v. Newton H. MURDOCK, Sheriff of Hardee County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 71-10.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 1, 1971.

Order vacated and Respondent ordered discharged.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 3, 2020

a0224 

# Order

Clerk March 3, 2020

159881(62)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 159881

COA: 341614

Berrien CC: 2017

- 001783

- FH

WILLIAM EDWARD SCHOLTES,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of th is Court’s November

26, 2019 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).
257 La. 575

#### Laddie J. BENNETT v. EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION, Ltd.

No. 50863.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 18, 1971.

Edwins, Cave & McKay, Donald G. Cave, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellant-respondent.

Durrett, Hardin, Hunter, Dameron & Fritchie, Emile C. Rolfs, III, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee-applicant.

BARHAM, Justice.

We granted writs on application of the defendant, and since this case involves the same issue as Deshotel v. Travelers Indemnity Company, we ordered the cases consolidated for argument. See Deshotel v. Travelers Indemnity Co., infra.

The plaintiff in the instant case, Laddie J. Bennett, filed suit against his automobile insurer, alleging that he received personal injuries and was otherwise damaged by the negligent operation of his automobile by his minor child, Richard C. Bennett. The suit was instituted under the direct action statute, R.S. 22:655, against Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., upon the contention that it was the insurer of the minor child Richard under the omnibus clause of the insurance policy. The .defendant filed peremptory exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action, contending that under Louisiana law a father may not recover damages for injuries suffered as a result of the negligence of his minor son. The trial court sustained the peremptory exceptions and dismissed plaintiff’s suit. On appeal the First Circuit reversed and remanded the case to the trial court.*238 So.2d 206.

For the reasons assigned in Deshotel v. Travelers Indemnity Company, this day decided, 257 La. 567, 243 So.2d 259, the judgment of the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, which reversed the trial court’s judgment sustaining the exceptions is affirmed, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The casting of costs is stayed until final adjudication of the parties’ rights in that court.

*

 This court is reluctant to grant writs to review a judgment which is not final, but because of the pendency in this court of Deshotel v. Travelers Indemnity Co., which involved the identical issue and which would be decisive of this case, we granted this writ.