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

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     This certification is intended to accompany the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Berkshire Bancorp Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), and
is given solely for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002. The undersigned, in my capacity as set forth below, hereby certifies 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/ Steven Rosenberg
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Steven Rosenberg,
                                        Chief Executive Officer, President
                                        and Chief Financial Officer

                                        March 29, 2004


                                       90
#### Burton GOLDBERG, Appellant, v. Joyce GOLDBERG, Appellee.

No. 72-644.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 15, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
No. 11835.

#### Drolesbaugh *v.*The State of Ohio.

Decided October 19, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Crawford county.

*Messrs. Finley & Gallinger,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. C. H. Henkel,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Sitauck and Price, JJ., concur.
#### Abraham M. DRUCKMAN, Appellant, v. LAWYERS TITLE GUARANTY FUND, Appellee.

No. 70-692.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 9, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Murray W. Overstreet, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Gormas, Michael (OST)

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Peter Lanciano

Tuesday, July 08, 2014 12:19 PM

Gormas, Michael (OST)

Docket DOT-OST-2009-0305

This e-mail was originally sent toMr. Martin re: air service in Tupelo, MS. It is just my strong opinton

As a commercial flyer residing in the Tupelo, Mississippi area, I have been very supportive of EASfor Tupelo

Regional Airport.

Silver Airways has been a "disaster" and has been largely responsible for the decline in passenger traffic

(although my personal experiences have been positive for the most part).

To me, the choice between Air Choice One and Seaport is not as critical as the destinations that will be

offered the new carrier ..

It is imperative that Tupelo flyers have the choice of flying to BOTH Nashville and Memphis. Memphis is no

longer an important hub for many national carriers and Nashville offers many more options for direct and

non-stop connections. Of course, having Southwest Airlines is another big plus for Nashville.

Thank you.

Philip Peter Lanciano

1
#### In the Interest of Phillip MAXWELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-830.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 5, 1973.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender and Lewis S. Kinder, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William L. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: Vauss v. United States, 1966, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 228, 370 F.2d 250; Frank v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 117; Broic v. State, Fla.1955, 79 So.2d 775; Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000947969
<NAME> MANGOSOFT, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          25,653
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        1
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,750
<PP&E>                                           2,970
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,161
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,566
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,962
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,577
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,566
<SALES>                                              4
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     4
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,070
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,504
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,176)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,176)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,176)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.16)



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-04-1999
<CASH>                                      14,959,360
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,495,556
<ALLOWANCES>                                   450,679
<INVENTORY>                                  1,211,408
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,867,844
<PP&E>                                     227,031,189
<DEPRECIATION>                              69,653,323
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             207,327,771
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       29,089,658
<BONDS>                                    207,947,587
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       25,715,701
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,128
<OTHER-SE>                                (55,465,303)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               207,327,771
<SALES>                                      6,822,384
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            56,868,696
<CGS>                                        2,838,923
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               47,684,912
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (55,812)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               251,819
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,208,458
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,810,619)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,810,619)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,810,619)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF UROQUEST MEDICAL
CORPORATION, INCLUDING THE NOTES THERETO, OF MARCH 31, 1998 AND FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      10,448,703
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,864,347
<ALLOWANCES>                                    60,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,436,811
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,954,235
<PP&E>                                       6,772,911
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,353,918
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,261,631
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,532,140
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,034
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,543,268
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,261,631
<SALES>                                      4,022,987
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,022,987
<CGS>                                        2,066,515
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,066,515
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,950,729
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,827
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (896,724)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (907,724)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (907,724)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)
        

</TABLE>
#### Emma WILLIAMS, as Mother and Guardian of Robert Williams, a minor, Deceased, etc., Appellant, v. WOMETCO ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 73-444.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 18, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 25, 1974.

*354Daniel Goldman and Jack H. Cohen, Miami, for appellant.

Walton,' Lantaff, Schroeder, Carson & Wahl, Richard Adams and Wayne Gill, Miami, for appellees.

Before HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ., and MARTIN, HENDY F., Jr., Associate Judge.

HENDRY, Judge.

Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of a summary judgment entered in favor of appellee, Wometco Enterprises, Inc.

Appellant’s son was shot and killed at appellee’s theater, the Capitol Theater, by a security guard. Appellant instituted this action, naming appellee, the security guard, and the security guard’s employer, and Patrick Lane Detective Agency, Inc., and its insurer as co-defendants. The judgment appealed was entered only in favor of Wometco.

The record demonstrates that in granting summary judgment the trial judge relied squarely upon this court’s holding in Brien v. 18925 Collins Avenue Corp., Fla.App. 1970, 233 So.2d 847. We think the court’s reading of the case was correct.

In Brien, we stated that a lawful activity involving the use of a firearm was not an inherently dangerous activity. We concluded that the owner of real property who hires a security corporation would not be vicariously liable for the negligent discharge of a firearm by the employee of the independent contractor, absent a showing that the owner had or ought to have had notice of the dangerous propensities of the guard employed by the security corporation.

The theater manager in the instant cause testified by deposition that, she had seen the security guard, Kenneth Graham, before only as a patron of the theater. She said when he approached the theater on the day in question he was carrying a shotgun and wearing only an undershirt and old jeans. The manager ordered Graham not to bring the shotgun into the theater, whereupon he put it into his car and returned to the theater to speak with another guard. We do not think that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the theater exercised either supervision and control over the security guard or had knowledge of his dangerous propensities.

Therefore, for the reason stated, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### Robert Lewis ZIEGLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. O-174.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 16, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Edna D. SLAUGHTER, as personal representative of the Estate of Harrison O. Slaughter, Deceased, Appellant, v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 6453.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Jan. 25, 1967.

William Wagner, Tampa, and Bob Or-seclc of Nichols, Gaither, Beckham, Colson & Spence, Miami, for appellant.

C. A. Boswell of Boswell & Boswell, Bartow, and Morris E. White of Fowler, White, Collins, Gillen, ITumkey & Trenam, Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant attempts to appeal a judgment which is in fact not final as to the appel-lee, Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company, and therefore non-appealable.

Appeal dismissed ex mero motu.

SHANNON, Acting C. J., HOBSON, J., and SILVERTOOTH, LYNN N., Associate Judge, concur.
#### Terry D. Robinson, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[654 NYS2d 25]

Order, Supreme Court, New *128York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered September 21,1995, which denied petitioner’s application to vacate an arbitration award and granted respondents’ cross motion to confirm the award, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner was properly deemed served with the arbitration award upon its mailing to the attorney who represented her at the arbitration hearing. Her attorney’s apparent delay in forwarding the award to her did not serve to toll or extend the 90 days petitioner had under CPLR 7511 (a) to move to vacate the award *(Matter of Case v Monroe Community Coll.,*89 NY2d 438). Vacatur of the award was also properly denied on the ground that in proceeding with the arbitration of her grievance, petitioner signed a valid waiver of any right to pursue her claim in any other administrative or judicial tribunal except for the purpose of enforcing the arbitrator’s award. In any event, respondents’ motion to confirm the award, for which there was a one-year time limit (CPLR 7510), rendered petitioner’s motion to vacate the award academic, and was properly granted in the absence of any support for petitioner’s claim that the award was procured through fraud, corruption or misconduct. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom and Andrias, JJ.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

NANCY TOLAND RICHARDS and 

CATHERINE TOLAND LILE, Personal 

Representatives of the Estate of John T. Toland,

No. 45045-3-II

Respondents,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT 

OF REVENUE,

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appellants.

MELNICK,J.— The Department of Revenue appealed a judgment in favor of Nancy Toland 

Richards and Catherine Toland Lile in their capacities as personal representatives of the Estate of 

John T. Toland. Richards and Lile now concede that the Washington State Supreme Court’s 

decision in In re Estate of Hambleton, 181 Wn.2d 802, 335 P.3d 398 (2014), cert. denied, 138 S. 

Ct. 318 (2015), is controlling and resolves this appeal in the Department’s favor. 

We accept the concession. The trial court’s judgment is reversed and remanded with 

instructions to enter judgment in the Department’s favor on the principal tax issue and to remand 

the case to the Department for determination of the additional issues. See Osborne v. Dep’t of 

Revenue, noted at 189 Wn. App. 1029, 2015 WL 4760567.

Filed

Washington State

Court of Appeals

Division Two

May 10, 2016
45045-3-II

2

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, 

it is so ordered.

Melnick, J.

We concur:

Worswick, J.

Bjorgen, C.J.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

A SPECIAL TOUCH,

Respondent

v.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, OFFICE OF

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TAX SERVICES,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 615 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13 th day of March, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner is:

Should this Court exercise its supervision to provide the controlling interpretation of the phrase “customarily engaged in an independent business” to define “employment” in the Unemployment Compensation Law

in order to resolve the inconsistent interpretations of the Commonwealth

Court as to a definition that is fundamental to the administration of the [Unemployment Compensation] program and thus of significant public importance?
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1380 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1380

 To direct the Secretary of Transportation to ensure that on-duty time 
  does not include waiting time at a natural gas or oil well site for 
  certain commercial motor vehicle operators, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 29, 2013

  Mr. Inhofe introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Transportation to ensure that on-duty time 
  does not include waiting time at a natural gas or oil well site for 
  certain commercial motor vehicle operators, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Preserving Jobs in the Oilfield Act 
of 2013''.

SEC. 2. WAITING TIME EXCEPTION.

    (a) Definition of Covered Operator.--In this section, the term 
``covered operator'' means the operator of a commercial motor vehicle 
transporting supplies, equipment, or materials (including produced 
fluids, drilling and completion fluids, and any other fluids or 
materials used in the drilling, completion, and production of an oil or 
gas well) to or from a natural gas or oil well site.
    (b) Exception.--The Secretary of Transportation shall ensure that 
the exception described in section 395.1(d)(2) of title 49, Code of 
Federal Regulations (relating to on-duty time not including waiting 
time at a natural gas or oil well site) applies to covered operators 
regardless of whether the operators have received special training or 
operate vehicles specially constructed to service wells.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 11

                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NET LOSS PER SHARE
Net loss per share is calculated as follows:
(in thousands)                                                   THREE MONTHS ENDED                     SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                                      JUNE 30,                               JUNE 30,
                                                              2000                1999               2000              1999
                                                        -----------------   -----------------    --------------   ---------------
<S>                                                     <C>                 <C>                  <C>              <C>
Net loss                                                        $ (2,763)           $ (6,121)         $ (5,226)         $ (9,723)
                                                        =================   =================    ==============   ===============

BASIC:
     Weighted average common shares outstanding                   10,177               9,988            10,142             9,972
                                                        =================   =================    ==============   ===============

     Net loss per common share                                   $ (0.27)            $ (0.61)          $ (0.52)          $ (0.98)
                                                        =================   =================    ==============   ===============

DILUTED:
     Weighted average common shares outstanding                   10,177               9,988            10,142             9,972
     Effect of dilutive securities:
         Convertible notes                                             -                   -                 -                 -
         Stock options                                                 -                   -                 -                 -
         Warrants                                                      -                   -                 -                 -
                                                        -----------------   -----------------    --------------   ---------------
     Weighted average common and common
         equivalent shares outstanding                            10,177               9,988            10,142             9,972
                                                        =================   =================    ==============   ===============

     Net loss per common and common
         equivalent share                                        $ (0.27)            $ (0.61)          $ (0.52)          $ (0.98)
                                                        =================   =================    ==============   ===============

</TABLE>
#### CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Alice E. O’SULLIVAN, a single woman, et al., Appellees.

No. 70-918.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 7, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 144 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to authorize 

additional funding for the pregnancy assistance fund. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24 (legislative day, JANUARY 3), 2013 

Mr. CASEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

to authorize additional funding for the pregnancy assistance fund. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pregnancy Assistance 

5 Fund Expansion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE PREGNANCY AS7 SISTANCE FUND. 

8 Section 10214 of the Patient Protection and Afford9 able Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18204) is amended by adding 

10 at the end the following: ‘‘In addition to amounts authorVerDate Mar 15 2010 16:13 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S144.IS S144

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 144 IS

1 ized to be appropriated in the previous sentence, there are 

2 authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 10210, 

3 an additional $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 

4 through 2019.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS