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

              Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to Section 906
                       of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


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

      In connection with the quarterly  report of DataMetrics  Corporation  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  January 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Daniel
Bertram, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  and Rafik Moursalien,  the
Controller of the Company,  does hereby certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) that: (1) The Report 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 Report fairly presents,
in all material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of
the Company.

         DATAMETRICS CORPORATION

         By: Daniel Bertram
             -----------------------
             Daniel Bertram, CEO

         Dated: July 2006


         By: Rafik Moursalien
             -----------------------
             Rafik Moursalien, CFO

         Dated: July 2006


SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the  requirements  of the  Securities  and Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant  has duly  caused  this Form 10-QSB to be signed on its behalf by its
duly authorized representatives.


                                                   DATAMETRICS CORPORATION
                                                   ------------------------
                                                   /s/ Daniel Bertram
                                                   Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to the  requirements  of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934,  this
report  has  been  signed  below  by the  following  persons  on  behalf  of the
Registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated:

Name                                  Title                        Date
-------------------            ------------------------        ---------------
/s/ Daniel Bertram             Chief Executive Officer            July 2006
-------------------
    Daniel Bertram

/s/ Rafik Moursalien           Chief Financial Officer            July 2006
-------------------
    Rafik Moursalien
Exhibit 32





Certifications





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 of American General Finance Corporation as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of, Frederick W. Geissinger, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Donald R. Breivogel, Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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, 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.







|      | /s/                                               | Frederick W. Geissinger  | 
|----- | ------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------ | 
|      |                                                   | Frederick W. Geissinger  | 
|      | President and Chief Executive Officer             |                         
|      | /s/                                               | Donald R. Breivogel, Jr. | 
|      |                                                   | Donald R. Breivogel, Jr. | 
|      | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer |                         
|Date: | May 11, 2006                                      |                          | 





39
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7735

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CLAUDE SLOAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, 

District Judge. (2:00-cr-10101-JPJ-1; 2:12-cv-80524-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted: December 11, 2012 Decided: December 21, 2012

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claude Sloan, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Claude Sloan seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Sloan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny leave to proceed in formal pauperis, deny a certificate of 

appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
3

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                          61,891
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  380,940
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,500
<INVENTORY>                                    479,686
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,090
<PP&E>                                       3,012,067
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,832,393
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,119,031
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,359,844
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,346
<OTHER-SE>                                     753,841
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,119,031
<SALES>                                        368,993
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               371,053
<CGS>                                          325,758
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  325,758
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               372,607
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,679
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (346,991)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (346,991)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (346,991)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.65)
        

</TABLE>
#### Floyd Lee WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 72-467 to 72-469.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 3, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 14, 1973.

Joseph F. McDermott, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment which comes to this court clothed with presumption of correctness is hereby affirmed.

LILES, Acting C. J., and McNULTY, J., and PIERCE, J. (Ret.), concur.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1016 CA 16-00108** 
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

JULIANNE RIZZO, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL VACUUM CORP., NATIONAL MAINTENANCE CONTRACTING CORP., NATIONAL POWER ASSOCIATES CORP., AND NATIONAL RESPONSE & EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC., AND JULIANNE RIZZO CPA, P.C., FORMERLY KNOWN AS ELLEGATE AND RIZZO CPA’S P.C., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL VACUUM CORP., NATIONAL MAINTENANCE CONTRACTING CORP., NATIONAL POWER ASSOCIATES CORP., AND NATIONAL RESPONSE & EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,

V ORDER

NATIONAL VACUUM CORP., NATIONAL POWER ASSOCIATES CORP., NATIONAL RESPONSE & EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC., NATIONAL VACUUM ENVIRONMENTAL CORP., JOHN G. KOZLOWSKI, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

GROSS, SHUMAN, BRIZDLE & GILFILLAN, P.C., BUFFALO (DAVID HAKAN ELIBOL OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS.

DUKE, HOLZMAN, PHOTIADIS & GRESENS LLP, BUFFALO (STEVEN W. KLUTKOWSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Mark A. Montour, J.), entered March 26, 2015. The order granted the motion of defendant National Vacuum Corp., for partial summary judgment.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: November 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

CARLA DUGLIN, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-1109

)

LAURENCE DUGLIN, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed April 18, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Robert A. Bauman, 

Judge.

David A. Maney of Maney Damsker Jones 

& Kuhlman, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Joy Ann Demas of Steven J. Glaros & 

Associates, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

SILBERMAN, MORRIS, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
255 La. 802

#### Arthur R. ADAMS, Sr. v. Nina Baudier ADAMS.

No. 50440.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 30, 1970.

In re: Nina Baudier Adams applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 230 So.2d 411.

Writs refused. Application filed too late.
EX10.22




 Exhibit 10.22 

MEDASSETS, INC. 

AMENDMENT 
 TO 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

This Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Agreement (defined below) is entered into as of December 11, 2013, by and
among MedAssets, Inc. (the “Company”), and Mike Nolte (“Employee”).  
 WHEREAS, the
Company and Employee are parties to that certain employment agreement dated as of March 5, 2012 which governs Employee’s employment with the Company (the “Agreement”); 

WHEREAS, the Company and Employee desire to amend the Agreement and to hereby formally acknowledge Employee’s consent to the
same. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and considerations contained in this Amendment and for other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are mutually acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 

1. Capitalized Terms. Capitalized terms that are not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings ascribed thereto
in the Agreement. 
 2. Amendments to the Agreement.  

 

	 	(i)	Section 1(x) of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 


“(x) Severance Multiplier” shall mean, with respect to any termination of Employee’s employment hereunder by the Company
without Cause or by Employee with Good Reason, 1.7; provided, however, that in the event such termination occurs within the two (2) year period following a Change in Control, the Severance Multiplier shall instead equal 3.4. 

 

	 	(ii)	Section 8(d)(iii) of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 


“(iii)  an amount equal to the Severance Multiplier multiplied by the Employee’s Base Salary, such amount to be payable in
substantially equal installments during the Severance Term, in accordance with the Company’s regular payroll practices;” 

3. Ratification and Confirmation. Except as specifically amended hereby, the Agreement is hereby ratified and confirmed
in all respects and remains in full force and effect. 
 4. Entire Agreement. The Agreement and this Amendment
constitute the entire understanding and agreement of the parties hereto regarding the employment of Employee and supersede all prior negotiations, discussions, correspondence, communications, understandings and agreements between the parties
relating to the subject matter hereof. 
 5. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Georgia, without reference to principles of conflict of laws. 
 6.
Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. The execution of this Amendment may be by
actual or facsimile signature. 
 7. Headings. Section headings are for convenience only and shall not be
considered a part of this Amendment. 
 [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to the Agreement as of the
date first set forth above. 
  

	
	
	/s/ Mike Nolte
	Mike Nolte


  

	
	MEDASSETS, INC.
	
	/s/ Keith Hicks
	Name: Keith Hicks
	Title: Chief People Officer



  
 - 2 -
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: AIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

______________________________

AIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, PHOENIX,

Respondent,

DOLPHIN INCORPORATED, an Arizona corporation,

Real Party in Interest. No. 21

- 71120

D.C. No. 2:19

- cv

- 05161

- DJH

MEMORANDUM *

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Argued and Submitted November 19, 2021

Pasadena, California

Before: BERZON and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and DORSEY, * * District

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

DEC 14 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Judge.

Petitioner AIG Specialty Insurance Company (“AIG”) filed a petition for a

writ of mandamus asking this Court to direct the district court to vacate its order s

requiring the production of five documents that AIG maintains are protected by the

attorney

- client privilege. We deny the petition.

Following Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter , 558 U.S. 100 (2009) , we

presume that “postjudgment appeals generally suffice to protect the rights of

litigants and ensure the vitality of the attorney

- client privilege.” Id. at 109.

Although a writ of mandamus may be available to correct a “particularly injurious

or n ovel privilege ruling,” Hernandez v. Tanninen , 604 F.3d 1095, 1101 (9th Cir.

2010) (quoting Mohawk , 558 U.S. at 110 ), AIG has not demonstrated that the

disclosures ordered by the district court would be particularly injurious or novel

.

We therefore presume that any error by the district court in identifying privileged

documents could be corrected on appeal.

Moreover, even if the district court did err, its order was not “clearly

erroneous.” In re United States , 884 F.3d 830, 834 (9th C ir. 2018) (quoting Perry

v. Schwarzenegger

, 591 F.3d 1147, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010) )

. The parties agree that

documents relating to ordinary insurance business functions are not covered by the

** The Honorable Jennifer A. Dorsey, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.3

attorney

- client privilege. AIG does not point to any Ninth Circuit o r Arizona cases

explaining how to determine whether a document was prepared as part of the

normal claims

- adjustment process or to provide legal advice. As the “line between

what constitutes claim handling and the rendition of legal advice is often more

clo udy than crystalline,” HSS Enterprises, LCC v. Amco Ins. Co. , No. C06

- 1485

-

JPD, 2008 WL 163669, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 14, 2008), we cannot say that the

district court clearly erred in drawing the line where it did. Because the absence of

clear error precl udes the grant of a writ of mandamus, In re Mersho , 6 F.4th 891,

898 (9th Cir. 2021) , we deny the petition.

PETITION DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                          15,290
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,126,703
<ALLOWANCES>                                   200,058
<INVENTORY>                                  5,045,124
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,552,169
<PP&E>                                       5,210,011
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,039,854
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,942,901
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,122,382
<BONDS>                                      1,861,743
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,110
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,945,666
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,942,901
<SALES>                                      6,209,156
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,209,156
<CGS>                                        4,212,946
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,212,946
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                53,093
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                32,797
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             210,144
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (905,202)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (305,242)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (599,960)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (599,960)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.46)
        

</TABLE>
EX-10.9



 Exhibit 10.9 

Non-Employee Directors’ Compensation for 2014 
 At
its regularly scheduled meeting on December 5, 2013, the Board of Directors of Aqua America, Inc., upon the recommendation of its Executive Compensation Committee, approved the following directors’ compensation for 2014 for the
non-employee directors of Aqua America, Inc.: (1) an annual cash retainer of $45,000; (2) an annual cash retainer for the Chair of the Executive Compensation Committee of $10,000; (3) an annual cash retainer for the Chair of the Audit
Committee of $10,000; (4) an annual cash retainer for the Chair of the Corporate Governance Committee, who also serves as the lead independent directors, of $10,000; (5) a meeting fee of $2,000 for each meeting of the Board of Directors;
(5) a meeting fee of $1,500 per meeting for meetings of the Board Committees; and (6) an annual stock grant to directors of $50,000, rounded to the nearest 100 shares payable on the first of the month following the Annual Meeting of
Shareholders. All directors are reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred in connection with attendance at Board or Committee meetings.
Presidential Documents

66251

Federal Register

Vol. 62, No. 243

Thursday, December 18, 1997

Title 3—

The President

Proclamation 7061 of December 16, 1997

Wright Brothers Day, 1997

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

On December 17, 1903, Orville Wright lay inside the first heavier-thanair powered craft that permitted controlled flight. His brother Wilbur stood

nearby, steadying the craft at one wing tip. In a few moments, the brothers

would know if their years of hard work and painstaking experimentation

would finally bear fruit. With Wilbur running beside the plane to build

its momentum, Orville achieved, for a scant 12 seconds over a distance

of 120 feet, what humankind had always dreamed of—he flew.

That historic moment marked the first step in a long journey through the

skies that would ultimately take Americans beyond Earth’s atmosphere and

into space. The Mars Pathfinder spacecraft that captured the world’s attention

and imagination this past summer reflects the same American ingenuity

and pioneering spirit that sent the Wrights’ fragile craft aloft so briefly

over Kitty Hawk almost a century ago. With unwavering perseverance in

the face of many failures, steady conviction in the possibility of flight,

and a determination to bring their vision to reality, the Wright brothers

expanded our horizons and also brought the world closer together.

We are still reaping the benefits of their extraordinary achievement. America’s

aerospace industry has experienced enormous growth and development since

the Wright brothers’ first flight. It has strengthened our economy, created

new business and recreational opportunities, freed us from many of the

limits of time and distance, and made our Nation’s aviation system the

finest in the world. And thanks in large part to the efforts of the men

and women throughout the Federal Government—in the Departments of

Transportation and Defense, the National Transportation Safety Board, and

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration—that system is also

the safest in the world.

The Congress, by a joint resolution approved December 17, 1963 (77 Stat.

402; 36 U.S.C. 169), has designated December 17 of each year as ‘‘Wright

Brothers Day’’ and has authorized and requested the President to issue

annually a proclamation inviting the people of the United States to observe

that day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
66252 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Presidential Documents

NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States

of America, do hereby proclaim December 17, 1997, as Wright Brothers

Day.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this sixteenth day

of December, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-seven,

and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred

[FR Doc. 97–33269

Filed 12–17–97; 8:45 am]

Billing code 3195–01–P

and twenty-second.

œ–