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



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, C. Tim Cassels, state and attest that:



(1) I am the Chief Financial Officer of AmericanWest Bancorporation (the
Registrant).



(2) I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge



    the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Registrant for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the periodic report)
containing financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); and



    the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant for the periods presented.



|      |  |                                                     
|----- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Name: |  | /s/ C. Tim Cassels                                  
|Title |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|Date: |  | April 25, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 134 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 134

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code to make permanent the credit for 
                    increasing research activities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 2011

   Mr. Holt introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code to make permanent the credit for 
                    increasing research activities.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF RESEARCH CREDIT.

    (a) In General.--Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by striking subsection (h).
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (1) of section 45C(b) of such 
Code is amended by striking subparagraph (D).
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts paid or incurred after December 31, 2010.
                                 <all>
```
---

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

The undersigned, Gerald Lau, Chief Executive Officer, of
Biopack Environmental Solutions Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for
      the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007 (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.                                                                                

Dated: March 25, 2008

|/s/ Gerald Lau                        | 
|------------------------------------- | 
|Gerald Lau                            | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer | 
|(Principal Executive Officer)         | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Biopack
Environmental Solutions Inc. and will be retained by Biopack Environmental
Solutions Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

---
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 quarterly report of OnScreen Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company"), on Form 10-QSB of the quarter ended September 30, 2006, I hereby
certify solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
knowledge:

(1) The quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company

OnScreen Technologies, Inc.

By: /s/ Russell L. Wall                     Dated this 14th day of November 2006
    -----------------------------------
        Russell L. Wall
    Chief Executive Officer / Director


                                       29
#### Ivey Lee RHOADES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 29319.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 4, 1957.

Erich F. Klein, Jr., G. Duffield Smith, Jr., Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Charles D. Cabaniss, Robert E. Lyle and A. D. Bowie, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, Sstate’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, three days in jail and a fine of $200.

Officer Walker of the Dallas police department testified that he observed a Cadillac automobile being driven from one lane to another and signaled it to halt; that the appellant, who was the driver, got out and walked back to meet him; that she walked unsteadily; that her speech was slurred and her eyes were bloodshot. He stated that a man was seated in the Cadillac with an open bottle of whiskey in his hand and that he found a full bottle on the floorboard, that he concluded they were both intoxicated, arrested them, and carried them to jail.

The appellant, testifying in her own behalf, recounted her activities of the evening and stated that she had had only one drink and was not intoxicated. She stated that after she was taken to jail a policeman asked her if she would take a sobriety test, and she replied that she would if she had an attorney present, but that she was not permitted to call an attorney until after she was booked, and no test was given her.

Appellant’s testimony was corroborated by her male companion of the evening and a friend with whom they had had a brief visit.

In rebuttal, the State re-called Walker and called Officer Ellis, who testified that the appellant had been offered the sobriety test when she was brought to the jail and refused to take the same. Ellis testified that in his opinion the appellant was intoxicated at the time he saw her.

The jury resolved the conflict in the evidence against the appellant, and we find the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction.

In her brief, the appellant contends that the court erred in permitting Officers Walker and Ellis to testify that the appellant refused to take the sobriety test.

There can be no question but that the appellant opened up the subject when she, on direct examination, volunteered the information about being offered the sobriety test, and the State was authorized to *876introduce other evidence on the subject. Hopkins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 282 S.W.2d 232.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RUSSELL D. MILLER AND

JULIET INVESTMENTS, INC.,

Appellants,

v.

DARLENE ARGUMANIZ,

INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF

ARGMIL, INC.,

Appellees. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 13

- 00091

- CV

Appeal from

168th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2013DCV1031)

CORRECTED JUDGMENT

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment with respect to the award of past economic damages for fraud . We therefore affirm

that part of the judgment of the court below. We reverse and render judgment in Russell ’s favor

on the awards for past and future lost profits on the breach of fiduciary duty claim. We reverse

the trial court’s award of damages for mental anguish and render judgment in favor of

Appellants. We likewise reverse and render judgment in Russell ’s favor on the award of

attorneys’ fees. The remainder of the judgment is affirmed, in accordance with the opinion of

this Court.2

We further order that Appellee recover from Appellant and its sureties, if any, see

T EX .R.A PP .P. 43.5, on the judgment and all costs, both in this Court and the court below for

which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 11 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, J., and Barajas, C.J., (Senior Judge)

(Barajas, C.J., Senior Judge, sitting by assignment)
Letter Agreement, dated as of June 18, 2004


 Exhibit 10.5 
  
 EXECUTION COPY 
  
 As of June 18, 2004 
  
 CDC Mortgage Capital Inc. 
 9 West 57th Street, 36th
Floor 
 New York, New York 10019 
  

	Attention:	 Mr. Raymond Sullivan 

  

	 	Re:	Second Amended and Restated Master Repurchase Agreement, dated as of June 23, 2003, as amended (the “Repurchase Agreement”), among CDC Mortgage Capital Inc.
(“Buyer”) and New Century Mortgage Corporation and NC Capital Corporation (each, a “Seller”) 

  
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 
  
 In general, the Termination Date under the Repurchase Agreement is June 23, 2004 unless otherwise extended pursuant to Section 3(m) of the Repurchase
Agreement, and the Seller has requested that the Buyer extend the Termination Date. 
  
 In consideration of the mutual agreements hereinafter set forth, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Seller and Buyer hereby agree as follows:

  

	1.	Pursuant to Section 3(m) of the Repurchase Agreement, Buyer hereby extends the Termination Date until the close of business on July 7, 2004. 

  

	2.	Except as described herein, all of the terms of the Repurchase Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects. 

  

	3.	All capitalized terms used herein and not defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the Repurchase Agreement. 

  

	4.	In the event that any provision of this agreement conflicts with any provision of the Repurchase Agreement or the Custodial and Disbursement Agreement, the terms of this agreement
shall control. 

  

	5.	This agreement shall not be assigned by the Seller without the prior written consent of the Buyer, which consent shall be in Buyer’s sole discretion. 


 

	6.	This agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original agreement, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same
instrument, and either party hereto may execute this agreement by signing any such counterpart. 








	7.	This agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York without regard to conflicts of laws principles. 


 
 [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] 
  

 -2- 







 Please indicate your acceptance and agreement by signing below where indicated and returning an
originally executed copy of this agreement to Seller. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ KEVIN CLOYD


	 	 	Name: Kevin Cloyd
	 	 	Title: Executive Vice President
	
	NC CAPITAL CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ KEVIN CLOYD


	 	 	Name: Kevin Cloyd
	 	 	Title: President


  
 Accepted and Agreed: 
  

			
	CDC MORTGAGE CAPITAL INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ ANTHONY MALANGA


	 	 	Name: Anthony Malanga
	 	 	Title: Managing Director
		
	By:	 	 /s/ KATHY LYNCH


	 	 	Name: Kathy Lynch
	 	 	Title: Director
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1415 

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to make technical corrections 

to the segment designations for the Chetco River, Oregon. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 7, 2011 

Mr. DEFAZIO (for himself, Mr. BLUMENAUER, and Mr. WU) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to make technical 

corrections to the segment designations for the Chetco 

River, Oregon. 

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 ‘‘Chetco River Protec5 tion Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO THE WILD AND SCE7 NIC RIVERS ACT. 

8 Section 3(a)(69) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

9 (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)(69)) is amended— 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1415 IH

1 (1) by inserting before the ‘‘The 44.5-mile’’ the 

2 following: 

3 ‘‘(A) DESIGNATIONS.—’’; 

4 (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), 

5 and (C) as clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively; 

6 (3) in clause (i), as redesignated— 

7 (A) by striking ‘‘25.5-mile’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘27.5-mile’’; and 

9 (B) by striking ‘‘Boulder Creek at the 

10 Kalmiopsis Wilderness boundary’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘Mislatnah Creek’’; 

12 (4) in clause (ii), as redesignated— 

13 (A) by striking ‘‘8’’ and inserting ‘‘7.5’’; 

14 (B) by striking ‘‘Boulder Creek’’ and in15 serting ‘‘Mislatnah Creek’’; and 

16 (C) by striking ‘‘Steel Bridge’’ and insert17 ing ‘‘Eagle Creek’’; 

18 (5) in clause (iii), as redesignated— 

19 (A) by striking ‘‘11’’ and inserting ‘‘9.5’’; 

20 and 

21 (B) by striking ‘‘Steel Bridge’’ and insert22 ing ‘‘Eagle Creek’’; and 

23 (6) by adding at the end the following: 

24 ‘‘(B) WITHDRAWAL.—Subject to valid 

25 rights, the Federal land within the boundaries 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1415 IH

1 of the river segments designated by subpara2 graph (A), is withdrawn from all forms of— 

3 ‘‘(i) entry, appropriation, or disposal 

4 under the public land laws; 

5 ‘‘(ii) location, entry, and patent under 

6 the mining laws; and 

7 ‘‘(iii) disposition under all laws per8 taining to mineral and geothermal leasing 

9 or mineral materials.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
#### Pearlie Branham ROBINETTE et al., Appellants, v. F. A. BRANHAM, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 1, 1959.

A. W. Mann, Ashland, for appellants.

Thomas E. Phipps, Ashland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion for an appeal in a controversy involving two independent claims. Plaintiffs filed a suit to recover $800 on a real estate transaction, and defendant denied the indebtedness and counterclaimed for injunctive relief with respect to a pass-way which plaintiffs allegedly obstructed.

The Chancellor, following recommendations of the Master Commissioner, entered a favorable judgment for the defendant. On their motion for appeal plaintiffs raise the question of the burden of proof and the sufficiency of the evidence. An examination of the record convinces us that the findings and conclusions of the Chancellor conform to the law and are amply supported by the evidence.

The motion for appeal is denied, and the judgment stands affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 13, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 10019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02769]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 166 and 167

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0279]


Shipping Safety Fairways Along the Atlantic Coast; Geographic 
Information System Files

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard published a proposed rule detailing the 
potential establishment of shipping safety fairways along the Atlantic 
coast. In order to help stakeholders visualize the proposed fairways, 
the Coast Guard is making geographic information system files available 
for public access.

DATES: Comments submitted on the proposed rule published January 19, 
2024, at 89 FR 3587, must be received by the Coast Guard on or before 
April 18, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document 
call or email Maureen Kallgren, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1561, 
email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eda08c989f888883c3bfc3a68c81818a9f8883dfad989e8e8ac3808481"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="357854404750505b1b671b7e5459595247505b0775404656521b585c59">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard published a proposed rule on 
January 19, 2024, proposing a series of shipping safety fairways along 
the Atlantic Coast (89 FR 3587). If you want to submit comments or 
related material on the proposed rule they must be received by the 
Coast Guard on or before April 18, 2024.
    In order to visualize the dimensions of the proposed fairways, many 
stakeholders reached out and asked for the geographic information 
system (GIS) files that chart the fairways. A GIS file displays 
geographically referenced information, in this case the location and 
dimensions of the proposed fairways. These files are now available for 
public access at https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/rulemaking-files.
    This document is issued under authority found in 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: February 6, 2024.
Steven E. Ramassini,
Captain, United States Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Navigation 
Systems.
[FR Doc. 2024-02769 Filed 2-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 on Form 10-K of Merchants Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Janet P. Spitler, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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 the results of operations of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.  Merchants Bancshares, Inc.By:/s/  Janet P. SpitlerJanet P. SpitlerChief Financial Officer & Treasurer
Principal Accounting OfficerMarch 16, 2010Date
#### Clifford TEMPLETON, Appellant, v. FED-MART OF TEXAS INCORPORATED et al., Appellees.

No. 4259.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Oct. 1, 1964.

M. S. Morgan, Houston, for appellant.

Baker, Botts, Shepherd & Coates, Geo. H. Kolb, Houston, for appellees.

WILSON, Justice.

Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment.

Appellant alleged he was an employee of Fed-Mart, and that Equitable Life Assurance Society issued to him a certificate of insurance under Fed-Mart’s group medical expense policy, on which monthly premium payments were to be made by Fed-Mart from funds withheld from his salary. He alleged premium payments were so withheld for the months of February and March, 1963, that he resigned his employment on March 8, 1963, and thereafter incurred hospital and medical expenses for treatment of his wife which Fed-Mart and Equitable were obligated to pay “under the extended benefits provisions” of the policy.

Appellees’ motion for summary judgment and affidavits asserted the provisions of the group policy as to “individual terminations” *945to the effect that insurance under the group policy should cease automatically upon termination of employment, and averred that appellant’s coverage under the group policy began January 13, 1963.

Appellant’s answer to the motion for summary judgment urged policy provisions not now relied on, and reasoning now abandoned. Appellant here relies on a clause in the conversion privilege provision of the policy which permitted an employee to obtain an individual converted policy after termination of employment by making written application therefor.

Aside from the fact there is no showing of application for the converted policy, the conversion privilege clause relied on was conditioned, among other prerequisites, upon the employee having “been insured under this policy for at least three months” at the time of termination of his employment. The record establishes without dispute that appellant had not been insured for the required period.

Affirmed.