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

# Written Statement of
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350

Solely
for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chairman of the Board,
President and Chief Executive Officer and Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of Midwest Air Group, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation (the Company),
hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the
Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                                                                                 | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|/s/  Timothy E. Hoeksema                                                         | 
|Timothy E. Hoeksema
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer | 
|/s/  Robert S. Bahlman                                                           | 
|Robert S. Bahlman
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer              | 

Date: May 10, 2004

A signed original of this written
statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### August H. DREESON, August V. Dreeson, and George Rivest, Appellants, v. TOWN OF MEDLEY, Florida, a municipal corporation, Appellee.

No. 68-534.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 10, 1968.

Cowart, Kimbrell & Bailey, Miami, for appellants.

Leonard L. Kimball, North Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for declaratory decree is modified to be without prejudice, and as so modified is affirmed.
#### Albert KENNEDY v. Earlie H. RITTER.

No. 44935.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 4, 1967.

Suggestion of Error Overruled Jan. 15, 1968.

William G. Burgin, Jr., Columbus, Richard B. Booth, Aberdeen, for appellant.

Mitchell & Rogers, Tupelo, for appellee.

BRADY, Justice:

The facts and issues in this cause are the same as those in the companion case of Francis v. Sisk, Miss., 205 So.2d 254 (Dec. 4, 1967). For the reasons stated therein, this cause is affirmed.

Affirmed.

All Justices concur.
##### 



Exhibit 31.3
 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION RULE 15d-14(a)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Mobile Storage Group, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 e)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;f)
    
    Not applicable
 g)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and
 h)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 c)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and
 d)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.
  /s/  Douglas WaugamanPresident and Chief Executive Officer
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

PERSONNEL GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. AND AFFILIATES

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 of Personnel Group of America,
Inc.(the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Larry L. Enterline, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, 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/ Larry L. Enterline





Larry L. Enterline
Chief Executive Officer
May 14, 2003


32
Exhibit
32.1








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 Congoleum Corporation (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Roger S. Marcus,
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 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,
and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.











March
30, 2009





/s/ Roger S. Marcus


Roger
S. Marcus


Chief
Executive Officer








A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Congoleum Corporation and will be retained by Congoleum Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
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 Eye Care centers of America, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas C. Shepard, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 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; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



|               |  |                                                     
|-------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|March 26, 2007 |  | /s/ Douglas C. Shepard                              
|               |  | Douglas C. Shepard                                  
|               |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO EYE CARE CENTERS OF
AMERICA, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY EYE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
No. 00-7103.

#### Eskridge *v.*Mississippi.

Sup. Ct. Miss. Cer-tiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6491

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

RONALD ERIC MARSHALL, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District 

Judge. (1:00-cr-00033-BEL-3) 

Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 29, 2009 

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Ronald Eric Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Martin Joseph Clarke, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Ronald Eric Marshall seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of a prior order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); 

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th 

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Marshall has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
#### Curley (NMI) GRADNEY v. VANCOUVER PLYWOOD COMPANY, INC.

No. 54478.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 22, 1974.

In re: Curley (NMI) Gradney applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Allen, 287 So.2d 534.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00538

- CR

D AVID A LFORD

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 16th District Court

of Denton County (F16

- 2926

- 16)

February 14, 2019

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
### Regulatory Evaluation**;J&!~-tVE-** 

### ::/I DocketNo. FAA- 

## ;J,t 15-- d 

## ?9:Lf Directorate Identifier: -AD



### Addthe 1rorkhours. parts cost. andJWmber ofC.S. registeredproducts to the table hdm1·. IYhen \'OU ore 

### _flnished, click on the "U)xfute 

### Fields" bwtun to 

### mrtomuticul!yji1l in the totals. 

### Update Fields 

# I

Estimated Costs: Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, (e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor+ 

## u.s. for U.S. Fleet Donot include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered and close-up) our) Products Initial Inspection 

### I 4

The known numberofproducts in compliance: "fUll'>.-.:."" Total Costs ofcompliance for U.S. fleet: $340 Costs covered underwarranty 

### (if known) 

### $\\**~'-i"'"~l_~l:y**
On-Condition Costs: • Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hoW') testing, and close- replacement) up) Inspection



### 7
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
REGISTRANT'S  AUDITED  CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DEC 31, 1997 AND AUDITED
CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT  OF OPERATIONS FOR [YEAR] THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO  SUCH  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                     1168099 
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                             11876854 
<ALLOWANCES>                                107196 
<INVENTORY>                                 523359 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          26121660 
<PP&E>                                     5123279 
<DEPRECIATION>                              181407 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            32895850 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     21303918 
<BONDS>                                    6500000 
<COMMON>                                   2500000 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                (1519246)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              32895850 
<SALES>                                  105857354 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         105857354 
<CGS>                                     88860220 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            106217776 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          (1378777)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             84788 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          649411 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             284156 
<INCOME-TAX>                                141122 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         143034 
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                143034 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .01 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .01 
        

</TABLE>
ORANGE AND ROCKLAND UTILITIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


                           Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                               Twelve Months Ended
                             (Thousands of Dollars)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                          YEAR        YEAR           YEAR          YEAR       YEAR
                                          1995        1996           1997          1998       1999
<S>                                     <C>        <C>            <C>           <C>         <C>


Earnings
     Net Income                            $38,573     $46,303        $29,706    $44,968       $14,726
     Federal Income Tax                     22,769      24,294         22,316     22,836        38,064
     State Income                              373         392            368      2,041         2,037
     Tax
                                         ----------   ---------     ----------  ---------    --------

            Total Earnings Before           61,715      70,989         52,390     69,845        54,827
            Federal Income Tax

Fixed Charges*                              33,907      31,660         32,970     34,468        32,871
                                         ----------  ---------     ----------   ---------     --------
            Total Earnings Before Federal Income
            Tax
               and Fixed                   $95,622     $102,649       $85,360    $104,313       $87,698
            Charges
                                         ==========   =========     ==========  =========     ========



     * Fixed
     Charges

     Interest on                           $26,620    $24,221        $23,216     $23,867       $26,326
     Long-Term Debt
     Amortization of Debt Discount,          1,394      1,462          1,521       1,138         1,208
     Premium and Expense
     Other                                   5,893      5,977          8,233       9,463         5,337
     Interest
                                         ----------  ---------     ----------   ---------      --------

            Total Fixed Charges            $33,907    $31,660       $32,970      $34,468        $32,871
                                         ==========   =========    ==========   =========      ========



     Ratio of Earnings to                     2.82        3.24         2.59       3.03            2.67
     Fixed Charges
</TABLE>
No. 11637.

#### The Sherwin-Williams Co. *v.*Kavanaugh.

Decided October 19, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Messrs. Ingersoll & Bacon,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Hart, Canfield & Croke,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, Spear, Davis and Price, JJ., concur.
#### *K.*G. MULLIS v. STATE.

No. 38528.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 220 So.2d 387.
Exhibit 32.1

# Written Statement
of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350

Solely
for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chairman of the Board,
President and Chief Executive Officer and Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of Midwest Air Group, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation (the Company),
hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the
Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Timothy E. Hoeksema 
Timothy E. Hoeksema Chairman of the Board,
President and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Curtis E. Sawyer 
Curtis E. Sawyer 
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 3, 2005
*** N OT FO R PUB LICAT ION I N WES T’S HAWAI # I REP ORTS AND PACIFI C REP ORTER ***

SCAP-13-0002732
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

VIRENDRA NATH, NANCY MAKOWSKI, KRISHNA NARAYAN,

and SHERRIE NARAYAN, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

vs. THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C., THE RITZ-CARLTON DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., MARRIOTT VACATIONS WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., THE RITZ-CARLTON MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.L.C., MARRIOTT TWO FLAGS, LP,

and MH KAPALUA VENTURE, LLC, Defendants-Appellants,

and KAPALUA BAY, LLC, MAUI LAND & PINEAPPLE CO., INC., KAPALUA REALTY CO., LTD., EXCLUSIVE RESORTS, LLC, MLP KB PARTNER, LLC, EXCLUSIVE RESORTS CLUB I HOLDINGS, LLC, EXCLUSIVE RESORTS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, ER KAPALUA INVESTORS FUND HOLDINGS, LLC, ER KAPALUA INVESTORS FUND, LLC, KAPALUA BAY HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT (CAAP-13-0002732; CIV. NO. 11-1-0216) Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAP-13-0002732 14-JUL-2017 08:51 AM*** N OT FO R PUB LICAT ION I N WES T’S HAWAI # I REP ORTS AND PACIFI C REP ORTER ***

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ., and Circuit Judge Nakasone, in place of Wilson, J., recused)

This appeal concerns the arbitrability of certain “purchase-based” claims pursuant to an arbitration clause contained in the Declaration of Condominium Property Regime of Kapalua Bay Condominium. On June 30, 2015, we affirmed the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit’s (circuit court) order denying Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to our opinion in Narayan v. Ritz-Carlton Development Co., 135 Hawai # i 327, 350 P.3d 995 (2015) (Narayan I).

On January 11, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated and remanded Narayan I and this case for further consideration in light of its decision in DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 136 S. Ct. 463 (2015).

The questions presented in this appeal are controlled by our decision in Narayan v. Ritz-Carlton Development Co., No. SCWC-12-0000819, at 3 (Haw. July 14, 2017) (pub. op.) (Narayan II), which affirmed our decision in Narayan I and held that “under long-standing Hawai # i contract law, the arbitration clause is unconscionable.”

Pursuant to our analysis in Narayan II, the circuit court’s July 12, 2013 order denying Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, July 14, 2017. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
#### CARIB CORP., a/k/a Carib Corporation, a Florida corporation, and Tom Jacobs, Individually, Appellants, v. BEVERLY BANK, a national bank incorporated in the State of Illinois, Appellee.

No. 67-537.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

March 12, 1968.

Rehearing Denied April 8, 1968.

Fred A. Jones, Jr., Miami, for appellants.

Bernard Weksler, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See old R.C.P. 1.8(d), 30 F.S.A. Mason v. City Finance Co., 113 Fla. 73, 151 So. 521 (1933); Marx v. Goldfinger, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 380; Fink v. Powsner, FIa.App.1959, 108 So.2d 324.
Table 6.  Homeownership Rates by Area:  Second Quarter 1999 and 1998




                                    Second     Second     Standard    Standard
Area                                quarter    quarter    error on    error on
                                     1999       1998     1999 rate  difference

United States.....................      66.6       66.0        0.2         0.2

  Inside MAs......................      64.6       63.9        0.2         0.3
   In central cities..............      50.1       49.5        0.3         0.5
   Not in central cities (suburbs)      73.7       73.0        0.2         0.3
  Outside MAs.....................      74.8       74.7        0.4         0.5

 Northeast........................      62.8       62.7        0.5         0.6
 Midwest..........................      71.2       70.3        0.4         0.5
 South............................      68.9       68.4        0.3         0.4
 West.............................      61.3       60.3        0.4         0.5
#### CHARLES SALES CORP., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Dee WALLACE, Billy Jackson, and J. Stockton Bryan, Jr., trading and doing business as Investors Construction Ltd., Appellees.

No. 69-1069.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 27, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.