alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.01








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 Annual Report of Benihana Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 27, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard C. Stockinger, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.








/s/ Richard C. StockingerRichard C. StockingerChief Executive Officer
From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: Bill Neuffer/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, S teve Fruh/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mariana Cubeddu/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 09/28/2011 03:40 PM
Subject: RIN 2060

- AQ10

Hi Bill,

We have concluded review of RIN 2060

- AQ10, Review of New Source Performance Standards for Nitric Acid Plants

-- Subpart G. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards, Cortney

________________________________________________ Cortney Higgins Poli cy Analyst OMB/OIRA/NRE 202.395.7856 chiggins@omb.eop.gov
[No. 310-3.

Division Three.

January 28, 1972.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. William Edward Clark, *Appellant.*
#### DONALDSON *v.*HULL.

1. Reformation of Instruments — Parol Evidence — Fraud—Mistake.

Written agreement is so conclusively presumed to embody real contract that, in absence of fraud, accident, or mistake, parol evidence is inadmissible to vary its terms.

On parol evidence as not admissible to vary, add to, or alter a written instrument, see annotation in 6 L. R. A. 38; 17 L. R. A. 270; 56 A. L. R. 13.

*3892. Same — Evidence Must be Clear and Convincing.

To overthrow written contract, on ground of mistake, parol evidence to establish mistake must be clear and convincing.

3. Same — Sufficiency of Evidence.

In suit to reform written agreement, on ground of mistake, finding of trial court that evidence of mistake was insufficient to warrant relief prayed, *held,*correct.

Appeal from Lapeer; Smith (Henry H.), J.

Submitted October 16, 1931.

(Docket No. 137, Calendar No. 35,659.)

Decided June 6, 1932.

Bill by Donald A. Donaldson, by his guardian, to reform a partnership dissolution agreement. Bill dismissed. Plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

*Herbert W. Smith,*for plaintiff.

*Theo. D. Hatpin,*for defendant.

Potter, J.

Plaintiff filed a bill of complaint against defendant to correct, on the ground of mistake, an agreement in writing made between Donald A. Donaldson and defendant, and for other relief. Defendant denied the material allegations in the bill of complaint. From a decree for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff need establish his right to relief only by a preponderance of evidence. The contract involved was one of partnership settlement and sale by Donaldson of partnership assets to defendant. The parties went to a banker who made a memorandum of the agreement entered into. This agreement was subsequently reduced to form by the banker, read over and executed by the parties. Having deliberately put the agreement in writing and signed and executed the same, such written agreement, in the *390absence of fraud, accident, or mistake, is so conclusively presumed to embody the real contract that no parol evidence can be permitted to vary its terms, but where it is sought to overthrow, by parol evidence, on the ground of mistake, a written contract, it has been the uniform holding of this court the evidence to establish such mistake must be clear and convincing. The trial court, upon a review of the testimony, was unable to find sufficient evidence of mistake to warrant modification of the written contract as prayed. In this we think the court was correct. Decree affirmed, with costs to defendant.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Btjtzel, JJ., concurred.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 193 (Friday, October 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 61871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24364]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8494]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``focus: Monika Baer'' and ``Monika Baer''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``focus: Monika Baer'' at The Art Institute 
of Chicago and in the exhibition ``Monika Baer'' at the Williams 
College Museum of Art,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition 
within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are 
imported pursuant to loan agreements with foreign owners or custodians. 
I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects 
at The Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL, from on or about October 
24, 2013, until on or about January 26, 2014; the Williams College 
Museum of Art, Williamstown, MA, from on or about February 22, 2014, 
until on or about May 18, 2014, and at possible additional exhibitions 
or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have 
ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: September 30, 2013.
Evan M. Ryan,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-24364 Filed 10-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14433]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: July 5, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
June 29, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 69 to 
Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2018-188, CP2018-262.

Elizabeth Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2018-14433 Filed 7-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
#### Charlie W. JOHNSTON dba Johnston Welding & Machine Works, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EMPIRE GAS, INC. OF OAK GROVE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11933.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Oct. 17, 1972.

Hamilton & Carroll by Donald K. Carroll, Oak Grove, and Davenport, Files & Kelly by William G. Kelly, Jr., Monroe, for appellant.

Carl F. Walker, Monroe, for appellee.

Before AYRES, BOLIN and HEARD, JJ-

HEARD, Judge.

Charlie W. Johnston, d/b/a Johnston Welding & Machine Works, instituted this suit against Empire Gas, Inc. of Oak Grove on a quantum meruit basis for materials and labor for completely revamping and overhauling a large trailer belonging to Empire Gas. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount sued for and interest from May 27, 1971 until paid, Empire Gas appealed.

Errors specified are (1) the trial court erred in granting plaintiff recovery for the entire sum claimed in that the number of hours charged was not reasonably required to effect the results obtained; and (2) the trial court erred in awarding legal interest from date of judicial demand instead of from date of judgment.

On the date of trial Johnston submitted an itemized statement of work and materials and hours expended in repairing the trailer. Empire Gas does not dispute the charge for parts and materials, nor the hourly rate, but only the number of hours worked. Johnston testified he was present every minute the work was done on the trailer and that the hours listed in the itemized statement were correct.

Raymond Estep, Jr., a welder, machinist and bookkeeper, testified the hours listed in the statement were correct. The only evidence to the contrary was given by Robert Rose, who qualified as an expert machinist and welder. He stated he could have done the job in less time than that *334taken by plaintiff. We believe this testimony insufficient to overcome the testimony of plaintiff and his employees that they put in the actual time repairing the trailer as set forth in the statement.

The trial judge rendered judgment with legal interest from May 27, 1971 until paid. As this is a suit on quantum meruit the legal interest does not run until the day of final judgment which in this case is March 20, 1972. Sugar Field Oil Company v. Carter, 214 La. 586, 38 So.2d 249 (1948); Connette v. Wright, 154 La. 1081, 98 So. 674.

Therefore, the judgment is amended providing for legal interest from March 20, 1972 until paid, and as amended, affirmed. Appellant is cast with cost.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 399 Agreed to House (ATH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 399

Resolution electing Representative Obey as Chairman of the Committee on 
                            Appropriations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 12, 1994

Mr. Hoyer submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Resolution electing Representative Obey as Chairman of the Committee on 
                            Appropriations.

    Resolved, That Representative Obey of Wisconsin is hereby elected 
Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

The following is a list of all  subsidiaries  of Secured  Digital  Applications,
Inc. as of December 31, 2004.

                                                          Jurisdiction of
Name of Subsidiary                                Incorporation or Organization
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EyStar Media Inc.,                                                     Delaware
a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company

SDA America Inc.,                                                      Delaware
a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company

Secured Digital Applications (M) Sdn Bhd (SDAM)                        Malaysia
a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company

Perwimas Telecommunications Sdn Bhd,                                   Malaysia
a 86.4% owned subsidiary of SDAM

Armor Multi Systems Sdn Bhd (AMS)                                      Malaysia
a wholly owned subsidiary of SDAM

Secured Shipping Sdn Bhd                                               Malaysia
a wholly owned subsidiary of SDAM

Digital Image ID Sdn Bhd                                               Malaysia
a wholly owned subsidiary of SDAM

Gallant Service Centre (M) Sdn Bhd (GSC)                               Malaysia
a wholly owned subsidiary of SDAM

Asiaco Services Sdn Bhd                                                Malaysia
a 60% owned subsidiary of AMS

Gallant IT Holdings Sdn Bhd (GIH)                                      Malaysia
a 55% owned subsidiary of GSC

Gallant Zone (M) Sdn Bhd                                               Malaysia
a wholly owned subsidiary of GIH

Gallant IT Distribution (M) Sdn Bhd                                    Malaysia
a wholly owned subsidiary of GIH

Gallant Focus (M) Sdn Bhd                                              Malaysia
a wholly owned subsidiary of GIH
General DataComm Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries
                          Calculation of Loss per Share
                      (In thousands except per share data)


                                                           Three months ended
                                                               December 31,
                                                              1996      1995
===============================================================================
Primary loss per share:

    Weighted average number of common shares outstanding    20,987      20,499
    Assumed exercise of certain stock options                    -           -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            20,987      20,499
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Net loss                                               ($5,674)    ($2,891)
    Payment of preferred stock dividends                      (450)        --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           ($6,124)    ($2,891)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary loss per share                                      ($0.29)     ($0.14)
===============================================================================

Fully diluted loss per share:

    Weighted average number of common shares outstanding    20,987      20,499
    Assumed exercise of certain stock options                    -           -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            20,987      20,499
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Net loss                                               ($5,674)    ($2,891)
    Payment of preferred stock dividends                      (450)         --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           ($6,124)    ($2,891)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fully diluted loss per share                                ($0.29)     ($0.14)
===============================================================================

                                      -15-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                      $2,594,845
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   $6,992
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            $2,630,869
<PP&E>                                         $92,873
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              $3,076,772
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          $50,249
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        $1,169
<OTHER-SE>                                  $3,025,354
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 $3,076772
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               $31,568
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            $(140,477)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             $(140,477)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         $(140,477)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                $(140,477)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  $(0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  $(0.12)


</TABLE>
254 La. 782

#### Walter Truitt BOOTY v. AMERICAN FINANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 50024.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 8, 1969.

In re: Walter Truitt Booty applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Cad-do. 224 So.2d 512.

The application is denied. There appears no error of law in the judgment complained of.
Exhibit 32.2



                            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 Annual Report of Secured Digital Applications,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the year ending  December  31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Voon Fui Yong, Chief Accounting 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 my knowledge:

     (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/ Voon Fui Yong
-----------------
Voon Fui Yong
Chief Accounting Officer
April 16, 2007
#### Kathryn Janet McPHERSON, as Executrix of the Estate of Hal W. McPherson, a/k/a Hal Wier McPherson, deceased, Appellant, v. ST. PETERSBURG BANK & TRUST COMPANY, a Florida Banking Institution, Appellee.

No. 69-630.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 2, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Amis *v.*Cooper.

Where suit was brought before a justice of the xieace, and an appeal taken, it was not error in the circuit court to refuse the defendant leave to file a set-off, none having been filed before the justice.

The defendant in such case could not prove any matter of set-off, because there was no set-off on file.

*Appeal from Dallas Circuit Court.*

Hon. Liberty Bartlett, Circuit Judge.

Gallagher & Newton, for appellant.

The set-off not having been pleaded before the justice of the *15peace, proof of a set-off was incompetent in the trial before the circuit court. *Gould’s Dig., eh. 99, sec. 196.*

"Walker, C. J.

This is an action upon account in a justice’s court. No set-off was filed before the justice, and, upon the trial, judgment was rendered in favor of Amis, from which Cooper appealed to'the circuit court.

When the case came up for. trial in the circuit court, the defendant, Cooper, moved the court for leave to file a set-off", which motion the court overruled. Upon the trial, Amis proved his account and rested; whereupon the defendant offered in evidence a paper proven to be in Amis’ hand-writing, in which the items of his own account were set out, and at the foot of the account, credited by sundry items of account and a note against him. Amis objected to the introduction of the paper as evidence, because no set-off had been filed, and because there was no evidence of the circumstances under which this paper was -written, nor the purpose or use to be made of it. But the court overruled the objection, and, sitting as a jury, received the evidence, after which the court decided in favor of the plaintiff, and rendered judgment in his favor for $323.

There can be no question but that the court erred in permitting the paper to be read in evidence, because, no matter how clearly it might have proven the indebtedness of the plaintiff for the items credited, still, unless the defendant had filed his set-off in proper time under the statute, there was no issue before the court to which the evidence could apply.

It was not error in the circuit court to refuse permission to file the set-off in the circuit court, none having been filed before the justice. To have done so would have changed the issue tried before the justice, and been in violation of the statute. *Dig., sec.*196, *page*681.

Judgment reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. William J. GUSTE, Jr., Attorney General v. Kenneth E. PICKERING, the Louisiana Commissioner of Financial Institutions.

No. 62019.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 1978.

In re: Kenneth E. Pickering, The Louisiana Commissioner of Financial Institutions, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.

DIXON, J., would grant.
#### Almyr SECKINGER et al., Appellants, v. Frank H. MOODY, as Administrator of the Estate of Ned Leroy Haven and Frank H. Moody, as Administrator of the Estate of Bessie Irene Haven, Appellees.

No. 71-237.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 17, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.