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

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



      In connection with the Quarterly report of Megola, Inc. (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"), I, Joel Gardner,
acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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; 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/ Joel Gardner
------------------------
    Joel Gardner
    CEO and CFO


March 21, 2006
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


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, James R. Smith, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Accounting Officer of CEDAR MOUNTAIN DISTRIBUTORS, INC. (the "Company"), hereby
certify that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


/s/ James R. Smith
----------------------------
James R. Smith
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Accounting Officer
November 12, 2003
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-06-28703-017-CV

IN RE 21ST CENTURY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.InN rReE KeEnNtT AlLtToOnNiIoO RoOgGeErRsS	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator's petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied as moot.  Tehhe tdistrict clerk has filed relator’s motion for DNA testing and request for appointment of counsel, and the trial court has appointed counsel to represent relator in his ppapplication fo r DNA testing.    Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus is denied as moot.

	Relator shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL A:	CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: September 78-, 2006January 21, 2003
#### Ex parte Curtis Gale DOBY.

No. 38229.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 23, 1965.

Orville A. Harlan, John J. Browne, Houston, for relator.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

This is an original application for writ of habeas corpus. Our opinions affirming petitioner’s conviction appear in Doby v. State, 383 S.W.2d 418.

As we pointed out on motion for rehearing, the search warrant was exhibited to petitioner’s counsel, and after examination, counsel stated that he had no objection.

We held this application on our docket to await the action of the Supreme Court of the United States in Linkletter v. Walker, 85 S.Ct. 1731 (June 7, 1965) and Angelet v. Fay, 85 S.Ct. 1750 (June 7, 1965).

We have now concluded that even though petitioner was in the appellate process at the time the Supreme Court handed down Aguilar v. State of Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723, he may not avail himself in this collateral attack of the rule therein announced because of his failure to object to the introduction of the fruits of the search at the time of trial.

The writ of habeas corpus is denied.
#### John I. BOWLING et ux. v. STATE of Texas.

No. 7098.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

Feb. 5, 1962.

Benjamin Kucera, Lubbock, for appellants.

Steve Hurt, Plainview, for appellee.

DENTON, Chief Justice.

This is a condemnation proceeding appealed from the county court of Hale County, Texas. Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. This motion, duly verified, sets out that since this appeal has been perfected the appellee tendered to appellants and appellants have voluntarily accepted all sums due under the judgment of the trial court. This motion has not been answered or contested by appellants. We must therefore proceed on the assumption the allegations therein are true.

The record reflects that the commissioners awarded appellants $23,500.00 and in due time appellants filed their objections to such award. Appellee subsequently deposited this amount into the registry of the court. Upon a trial de novo the jury assessed damages in the amount of $26,000.00. Appellee thereupon deposited an additional $2500.00 into the registry of the court, making the total amount deposited for the benefit of the appellants equal to the judgment award. Since this appeal was perfected appellants have accepted these checks, and photostatic copies of the two checks reflect that appellant John I. Bowling endorsed and cashed these checks on June 5, 1961.

 The facts in respect to the withdrawal of funds in the instant case seem to be identical to the facts in the case of Latimer v. State (Civ.App.) 328 S.W.2d 242 (refused n. r. e.). The Beaumont Court of Civil Appeals, in dismissing the appeal,, followed the rule pronounced by the Supreme Court in Carle v. Carle, 149 Tex. 469, 234 S.W.2d 1002. It is well settled that a litigant can not accept the benefits of a judgment and thereafter prosecute an appeal therefrom. As stated on motion for rehearing in the Latimer case, supra, Article 3268 Vernon’s Ann.Tex.Civ.St. and cases thereunder allowing an appeal after a landowner has accepted the award of the commissioners are not controlling under the circumstances of the instant case. Here the amount tendered and accepted was the award by the court’s judgment.

The appeal is therefore dismissed at the cost of appellants.
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

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 Quarterly Report of EvergreenBancorp, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, William G. Filer II, Chief Financial Officer, 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; 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/ William G. Filer II

William G. Filer II
Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2003
#### James M. SHARP, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27966.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 1, 1956.

No appearance for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Eugene Brady, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DICE, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault upon a female, under an indictment charging him with the offense of assault with intent to murder, and assessed punishment of two years in jail and a fine of $1,000.

The state’s testimony shows that the appellant and Mrs. Geneva Howell, the injured female, had known each other for about a year and had dates together; that on the afternoon of April 23, 1955, appellant came to Mrs. Howell’s apartment and wanted to talk to her and she told him she did not want to talk to him while he was drunk and to come back later. After appellant had followed her into another apartment and still insisting on talking to her, he grabbed her around the neck, pushed her out the door, drug her down the stairway and out of the building and pursued her as she ran across the street to a house and then to an automobile. The testimony shows that during the encounter appellant stabbed Mrs. Howell twelve times with a pair of scissors.

Appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in his behalf.

The state’s evidence shows an assault by an adult male upon the person of a female and is sufficient to support the conviction.

No brief has been submitted, and we perceive no error reflected by the informal bills of exception presented in the statement of facts.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 327

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide clarification for

the deductibility of expenses incurred by a taxpayer in connection with

the business use of the home.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 1 (legislative day, JANUARY 30), 1995

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. EXON, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr.

GRASSLEY, Mr. JOHNSTON, and Mr. KERREY) introduced the following

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

clarification for the deductibility of expenses incurred

by a taxpayer in connection with the business use of

the home.

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 ‘‘Home Office Deduc5 tion Act of 1995’’.
2

•S 327 IS

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF PRINCIPAL

2 PLACE OF BUSINESS.

3 Subsection (f) of section 280A of the Internal Reve4 nue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating paragraphs

5 (2), (3), and (4) as paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respec6 tively, and by inserting after paragraph (1) the following

7 new paragraph:

8 ‘‘(2) PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS.—For

9 purposes of subsection (c), a home office shall in any

10 case qualify as the principal place of business if—

11 ‘‘(A) the office is the location where the

12 taxpayer’s essential administrative or manage13 ment activities are conducted on a regular and

14 systematic (and not incidental) basis by the tax15 payer, and

16 ‘‘(B) the office is necessary because the

17 taxpayer has no other location for the perform18 ance of the essential administrative or manage19 ment activities of the business.’’

20 SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF STORAGE OF PRODUCT SAMPLES.

21 Paragraph (2) of section 280A(c) of the Internal Rev22 enue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘inventory’’

23 and inserting ‘‘inventory or product samples’’.
3

•S 327 IS

1 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 The amendments made by this Act shall apply to tax3 able years beginning after December 31, 1991.

Æ
EXHIBIT 10.20




The following form of agreement was executed by The Ohio Valley Bank Company and each of the following directors on the dates indicated beside their names:







	
Name

	 	
Date of Agreement


	 	 	 
	
David W. Thomas

	 	
December 20, 2016


	 	 	 
	
Harold A. Howe

	 	
December 13, 2016


	 	 	 
	
Jeffrey E. Smith

	 	
December 13, 2016


	 	 	 
	
Steven B. Chapman

	 	
December 13, 2016


	 	 	 
	
Thomas E. Wiseman

	 	
December 13, 2016















2016 DETERMINATION OF DIRECTOR'S FEES


 


FOR PURPOSES OF THE DIRECTOR RETIREMENT AGREEMENT


FOR _____________







THIS AGREEMENT is made this ______ day of December, 2016, by and between THE OHIO VALLEY BANK COMPANY located in Gallipolis, Ohio (the "Company"), and ______________ (the "Director").


 


The Company and the Director entered into a DIRECTOR RETIREMENT AGREEMENT most recently amended and restated on ____________________, 20__ (the "Agreement").


 


The Director agrees that Director's "total annual or monthly fees" for purposes of sections 2.1.1 Normal Retirement Benefit, 2.2.1 Disability Benefit, and 3.1.1 Death During Active Service will include the annual board retainer and monthly fees paid to all directors, earned by the Director during a Plan Year and will not include committee fees of any type, lead director fees or other special director fees.







The parties, by executing this Agreement hereby agree to the terms stated herein.







 


	
DIRECTOR:

	 	
THE OHIO VALLEY BANK COMPANY


	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	
By:

	 
	 	 	
 


Title:
Exhibit








December 31, 2016


Re:    Renewal of Amended and Restated Retention Agreement
Dear Shawn:
This letter is to serve as your notification that Ply Gem Industries, Inc. has elected to execute its Renewal Term right under your current Amended and Restated Retention Agreement dated November 7, 2008 for a period of one year.  As such, all applicable rights and terms as outlined in your Amended and Restated Retention Agreement will remain in effect through December 31, 2017.
Please sign this letter in the space provided below as your acknowledgment and agreement of this Renewal Term agreement and return this original to me, and retain a copy for your own records.
	
		
	 
	Sincerely,

	 
	 

	 
	PLY GEM INDUSTRIES, INC.

	 
	 

	 
	By:  /s/ Gary E. Robinette

	 
	Name:  Gary E. Robinette

	 
	Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer

	 
	 

	 
	 

	 
	 

	Acknowledged and Agreed:
	 

	 
	 

	 
	 

	/s/ Shawn K. Poe


	 

	Shawn K. Poe
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

*CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*

* *

In connection with theQuarterly Report of MedicalCV, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB,as amended, for the quarter ended October 31, 2005, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, MarcP. Flores, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.             TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.             Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| Dated:   March 20, 2006 | By:                                    | /s/ Marc P.  Flores |   |
|------------------------------|----------------------------------------|---------------------|--------|
|                         | Marc P.  Flores                        |
|                         | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 21

           LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

The  Registrant  owns  all  of the  issued  and  outstanding
capital  stock  of  (1) Great Bay Power Marketing,  Inc.,  a
Maine  corporation, (2) BayCorp Ventures,  LLC,  a  Delaware
limited  liability company, (3) Great Bay Hydro Corporation,
a  New Hampshire corporation, (4) Nacogdoches Power, LLC,  a
New  Hampshire  limited liability company,  (5)  Nacogdoches
Gas, LLC, a New Hampshire limited liability company, and (6)
Great  Bay  Hydro  Maine,  LLC, a  Maine  limited  liability
company.   Great  Bay  Hydro Benton, LLC,  a  Maine  limited
liability company, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Great Bay
Hydro Maine.   Great Bay Hydro Maine owns all of the general
partnership interests and Great Bay Hydro Benton owns all of
the   limited   partnership  interests   of   Benton   Falls
Associates, L.P.

The  Registrant owns approximately 59.7% of the  issued  and
outstanding capital stock of HoustonStreet Exchange, Inc., a
Delaware corporation.

Great Bay Power Marketing, Inc. conducts business only under
the  business  name  of  Great  Bay  Power  Marketing,  Inc.
BayCorp  Ventures,  LLC  conducts business  only  under  the
business  name  of BayCorp Ventures, LLC.  Great  Bay  Hydro
Corporation  conducts business only under the business  name
of  Great  Bay  Hydro Corporation.  Nacogdoches  Power,  LLC
conducts   business  only  under  the   business   name   of
Nacogdoches  Power,  LLC.   Nacogdoches  Gas,  LLC  conducts
business  only  under the business name of Nacogdoches  Gas,
LLC.   Great  Bay  Hydro Maine, LLC conducts  business  only
under  the  business  name of Great Bay  Hydro  Maine,  LLC.
Benton  Falls  Associates conducts business only  under  the
business  name  of  Benton Falls Associates.   HoustonStreet
Exchange,  Inc.  conducts  business  only  under  the  names
HoustonStreet    Exchange,    Inc.,    HoustonStreet     and
HoustonStreet.com.
Calendar No. 136

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 283

[Report No. 104–103]

A BILL

To extend the deadlines under the Federal Power

Pennsylvania, and for other purposes.Act applicable to two hydroelectric projects in

JULY 11 (legislative day, JULY 10), 1995

Reported without amendment
II

Calendar No. 136

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 283

[Report No. 104–103]

To extend the deadlines under the Federal Power Act applicable to two

hydroelectric projects in Pennsylvania, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 26 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. SANTORUM) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

JULY 11 (legislative day, JULY 10), 1995

Reported by Mr. MURKOWSKI, without amendment

A BILL

To extend the deadlines under the Federal Power Act applicable to two hydroelectric projects in Pennsylvania, and

for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 283 RS

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR PROJECT

2 NUMBER 4474.

3 Notwithstanding the time limitations of section 13 of

4 the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory

5 Commission (referred to in this Act as the ‘Commission’),

6 upon the request of the licensees for Commission Project

7 No. 4474, is authorized, in accordance with the good faith,

8 due diligence, and public interest requirements of section

9 13 of the Federal Power Act and the Commission’s proce10 dures under such section, to extend until April 15, 2001,

11 the time required for the licensees to commence construc12 tion of such project.

13 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR PROJECT NUMBER

14 7041.

15 Notwithstanding the time limitations of section 13 of

16 the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory

17 Commission (referred to in this Act as the ‘Commission’),

18 upon the request of the licensees for Commission Project

19 No. 7401, is authorized, in accordance with the good faith,

20 due diligence, and public interest requirements of section

21 13 of the Federal Power Act and the Commission’s proce22 dures under such section, to extend until April 15, 2001,

23 the time required for the licensees to commence construc24 tion of such project.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       6,543,977
<SECURITIES>                                11,398,363
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,742,951
<PP&E>                                       2,263,596
<DEPRECIATION>                                 789,789
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,515,341
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,763,751
<BONDS>                                        908,380
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        207
<COMMON>                                        10,206
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,832,797
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,515,341
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            36,637,714
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             146,056
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             39,709,194
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                39,709,194
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.94


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 450 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 450

 For the relief of Foad Miahi-Neysi and his wife, Haiedeh Miahi-Neysi.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            February 16 (legislative day, January 30), 1995

 Mr. Grassley introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 For the relief of Foad Miahi-Neysi and his wife, Haiedeh Miahi-Neysi.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    Notwithstanding any provision of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act, for the purposes of such Act, Foad Miahi-Neysi and his wife, 
Haiedeh Miahi-Neysi, shall be held and considered to have been lawfully 
admitted to the United States for permanent residence as of the date of 
the enactment of this Act, upon payment of the required visa fees.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

    Upon the granting of permanent residence to the individuals named 
in section 1, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer 
to reduce by the proper number, during the current or the next fiscal 
year--
            (1) the total number of immigrant visas available to 
        natives of the country of the aliens' birth under section 
        203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
        1153(a)); or
            (2) if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 
        available to natives of the country of the aliens' birth under 
        section 202(e) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
                                 <all>
```