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

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of National Home Health        Care Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2007, as        filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the        “Report”), I, Steven Fialkow, Principal Executive Officer of the Company,        certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to 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. |
|-----|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| October 29, 2007 | /s/ Steven                    Fialkow                           Steven Fialkow                    Principal Executive Officer |
|------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

A signed original of this written statement required by 18        U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to National Home Health Care Corp. and will be        retained by National Home Health Care Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange        Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statements of National Home Health Care Corp. on Forms S-8,  (Registration  Nos.
033-61315 and  333-46076)  of our report dated October 3, 2000,  with respect to
the  consolidated  financial  statements of National Home Health Care Corp.  and
subsidiaries  for the year ended July 31, 2000  included in its Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2002.


/s/ HOLTZ RUBENSTEIN & CO., LLP
-------------------------------
HOLTZ RUBENSTEIN & CO., LLP
Melville, New York
October 24, 2002
#### Russell Glenn COX, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28141.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 7, 1956.

*656No appearance 'for appellant. '■

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

PER ‘CURIAM.

The information is in two counts, one charging the offense of the unlawful sale of whiskey and the other charging the offense of ,thé unlawful transportation of whiskey, gin and wine; the punishment, 20 days in jail and a fine of $200.

The record on -appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Mikos *v.*Union Collieries Company, Appellant.

Argued April 10, 1939.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Parker, Rhodes and Hirt, JJ.

*11June 27, 1939:

*Edward J. I. Gannon,*of *Hazlett, Gannon & Walter,*for appellant.

*Fred J. Jordan,*with him *Murray J. Jordan*and *Arthur L. McLaughlin,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

Following the recent decisions of the Supreme Court in *Adamchick v. Wyoming Valley Collieries Co.,*332 Pa. 401, 3 A. 2d 377, and *Harring v. Glen Alden Coal Co.,*332 Pa. 410, 3 A. 2d 381, this judgment must be reversed.

A careful reading of the record fails to show any substantial evidence that the claimant suffered an accident in the course of his employment, which resulted in a disabling injury, within the rulings of those cases. See also *Orlando v. Penna. R. R.,*133 Pa. Superior Ct. 588, 3 A. 2d 220.

The judgment is reversed and is here entered for the defendant.
Cite as 2017 Ark. 4

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CV-16-560

WAYNE HOLDEN & COMPANY, INC.

APPELLANT

V.

TYLER WAGGONER, DECEASED

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered: January 12, 2017

JOINT MOTION TO WITHDRAW 

PETITION FOR REVIEW AND 

REMAND TO THE ARKANSAS 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

COMMISSION

MOTION TO WITHDRAW PETITION 

FOR REVIEW STAYED; REMANDED.

PER CURIAM

The parties have filed a joint motion to withdraw their petition for review and 

remand to the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission.

We stay the motion to withdraw the petition for review. We remand to the Arkansas 

Workers’ Compensation Commission for consideration of their joint petition settlement.

The parties shall provide the court with a status report within 90 days.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2179

SHEILA MICHAEL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Jillyn K. Schulze, Magistrate Judge. 

(8:09-cv-02575-JKS)

Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: May 8, 2012

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sheila Michael, Appellant Pro Se. Alex Gordon, Allen F. Loucks, 

Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sheila Michael appeals the magistrate judge’s order 

affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to deny 

Michael a period of disability insurance benefits.* We must 

uphold the decision to deny benefits if the decision is 

supported by substantial evidence and the correct law was 

applied. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (West Supp. 2011); Johnson v. 

Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). We 

have thoroughly reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm. See Michael v. Astrue, No. 

8:09-cv-02575-JKS (D. Md. Sept. 26, 2011). 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.

AFFIRMED

 * Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006), the parties 

consented to proceeding before a magistrate judge.
Exhibit 10.22

                   Outside Directors' Compensation Arrangement


1.    On an annual basis, outside directors will receive:

      a.    a retainer of $20,000, to be paid in cash;

      b.    an additional cash retainer of $7,000 for service as chair of the
            Audit and Finance Committee;

      c.    an additional cash retainer of $3,500 for service as chair of any
            other committee of the board;

      d.    a meeting attendance fee of $1,000 cash for each meeting of the full
            board and each meeting of a committee attended, whether a regular or
            special meeting and whether a face to face meeting or a
            teleconference, provided that only one such fee would be received
            for a single day on which a director participated in more than one
            such meeting;

      e.    an option grant as of the first trading day of the calendar year
            covering 5,000 shares of common stock with a strike price based on
            the closing price of the stock on the Nasdaq Stock Market on the
            date of grant, which option will become vested and exercisable in
            one tranche one year after the date of grant if the director remains
            on the Board at that time; and

      f.    a grant of restricted common stock units as of the first trading day
            following June 30 covering that number of shares of common stock
            having an aggregate value of $25,000, based on the closing price of
            the stock on the Nasdaq Stock Market on the date of grant, which
            restricted stock units are to become fully vested in thirds on each
            of the first three anniversaries after the date of grant if the
            director remains on the Board on each such date.

3.    The cash elements above are to be paid quarterly at the end of each
      quarter, beginning with the first quarter of calendar 2004.

4.    In addition to the foregoing, upon being initially elected to the board a
      new director will receive a "welcome grant" of restricted common stock
      units covering that number of shares of common stock having an aggregate
      value of $25,000, based on the closing price of the stock on the Nasdaq
      Stock Market on the date of grant, which shall be the day on which such
      director is first elected. Such restricted stock units will vest in thirds
      on each of the first three anniversaries after the date of grant if the
      director remains on the Board on each such date.


                                      E-2
**EXHIBIT 99.01**

** **

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

** **

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Richard S.Fuld, Jr., certify that:

 

1.                                       The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscalyear ended November 30, 2002 (the “Report”) of Lehman Brothers Inc. (the“Company”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| Date:                    February 28, 2003 |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                                                                                      |   |   |
|                                                                                                                                      |   |   |
|                                                                                                                                      |   | /s/ Richard S. Fuld, Jr |
|                                                                                                                                      |   | Richard S. Fuld, Jr.Chairman and Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
The Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of *

Michigan, sitting by designation. 

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 08a0752n.06

Filed: December 10, 2008

No. 07-4220

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

TOMMY DILLE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LVI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.;

LOCAL 310 BUILDING LABORERS;

PHILIP LUPKES, Superintendent,

Individually; ROBERT SMITH, General

Foreman, Individually; TOM JOHNSON,

Project Manager, Individually; DERRICK

GOULD, Crew Foreman, Individually;

DEMESHEO WILSON, Operations Manager,

Individually, 

Defendants-Appellees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Before: COLE and COOK, Circuit Judges; and EDMUNDS, District Judge*

COOK, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant Tommy Dille appeals the decision of the district

court to enter summary judgment for defendants-appellees LVI Environmental Services, Inc., its

employees Philip Lupkes, Robert Smith, Tom Johnson, Derrick Gould, Demesheo Wilson, and Local

310 Building Laborers. Dille sued the defendants-appellees under a series of Federal and State

employment discrimination claims. After reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the parties’
No. 07-4220

Dille v. LVI Environmental Services

- 2 -

briefs, we find that the magistrate judge’s opinions carefully and correctly set out the facts and the

governing law. Because this court’s issuance of a full opinion would serve no jurisprudential

purpose and would be duplicative, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to defendantsappellees, adopting the reasoning of the magistrate judge’s opinions of August 24, 2007 except on

one point. We consider it a close question whether Dille failed to set forth a prima facie case of

retaliatory discharge under Title VII. But even assuming Dille met the prima-facie-case test, we

agree with the magistrate judge’s reasoning that Dille failed to produce evidence raising a genuine

issue of material fact regarding whether the non-discriminatory reason LVI gave for discharging him

was a pretext for race discrimination.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Krish Panu, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of At Road, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting.
Date: May 10, 2004
/s/ Krish Panu
Krish Panu
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-4201

___________

Bobbi Michelle Bruns, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Leech Lake Reservation Housing *

Authority, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

Leech Lake RTC Members, in their * District Court for the

official capacity; IHA Board of * District of Minnesota.

Commissioners; Martin Jennings; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Rocky Papsadora; Eli Hunt; Daniel *

Brown; Myron Ellis; Jack Seelye; *

Alfred Fairbanks; Sidney Jones; *

Kenneth Brown; Lillian Reese; *

Delores Larson; Esther Bogda; *

Mary Bebeau; Leech Lake *

Reservation Tribal Council, *

*

Defendants. *

___________

 Submitted: April 7, 1998

Filed: April 14, 1998

___________
The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Raymond L.

Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Bobbi Michelle Bruns appeals the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject 1

matter jurisdiction her claim under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17. After a

careful review of the record and the parties’ submissions on appeal, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1484 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the 

appeals process of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

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

•HR 1484 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans Appeals Im3 provement Act of 2011’’. 

4 SEC. 2. WAIVER OF REGIONAL OFFICE JURISDICTION OVER 

5 INCORPORATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL EVI6 DENCE INTO PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED 

7 CLAIMS. 

8 (a) WAIVER.—Section 7104 of title 38, United States 

9 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 

10 subsection: 

11 ‘‘(f) If a claimant or the claimant’s representative 

12 submits new evidence in support of a case for which a sub13 stantive appeal has been filed, such evidence shall be sub14 mitted to the Board directly and not to the agency of juris15 diction, unless the claimant or the claimant’s representa16 tive requests that the evidence be reviewed by the agency 

17 of jurisdiction before being submitted to the Board.’’. 

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (f) of section 

19 7104 of title 38, United States Code, as added by sub20 section (a) of this section, shall apply with respect to evi-
3 

•HR 1484 EH

1 dence submitted on or after the date that is 90 days after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 31, 2011. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1484 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve 

erans Affairs. the appeals process of the Department of Vet-
Novemb e Docket M US Dep a 1200 Ne w SE Wes t Room W Washing To Who m United A of Exem p exempti o §121.61 9 (a) No p e alternat e conditio n addition a hour bef o appropri a (1) T (2) V (b) For t h airport m (c) No p e release. Reques t As curre n Referen c January A ugust 1 Thank y o required Sincerel y
Ellen Bir m Director United A Tel 872 8 ellen.bir m e r 2, 2015 ( R M anagemen t a rtment of T r wJersey Av tBuilding G r W 12-140

ton, DC 20 5 m It May Co n ir Lines, Inc
. p tion 8653 G o n allows de 9Alternate e rson may d e airport for e n s forecast f o a l alternate m o re and 1 h o a te weather T he ceiling w V isibility will h e purposes m ust meet th e

e rson may d t ed Relief: n tly stated i n c ing regulat o 31, 2016. A , 2005, and o u for your c

for your rev y ,

m ingham Flight Opera irlines, 233 S 8 25 5193 m ingham@ u
233 South R evised No v tFacility ransportatio n v enue round Floo r 5 90 n cern:

. , operating in accorda n viation from airport for d ispatch an a e ach destin a o r the desti n m ust be des i o ur after the

reports or f o w ill be at lea

be at least 3 of paragra p e requireme ispatch a fli g

n Exemptio n o ry docket n u A ll reasons a

as most re c c onsideratio n

iew.

ations Regul S outh Wac k u nited.com
hWacker Drive 2 v ember 11, 2
n

certificate C n ce with the

14 CFR Se d estination a irplane und a tion airport n ation and fi r i gnated. Ho w estimated ti o recasts, or st 2,000 fe e 3miles. p h (a) of this nts of § 121 g ht unless h

n No. 8653G

u mber FAA a nd substan c ently grant e n of this peti t

atory Comp k er Drive - 2 3

3 rd

Floor WHQFO 2 015)

C ALA014 A , p

provisions o ction 121.6 1 : IFR or ove er IFR or o v in the dispa t rst alternate w ever, no al me of arriva any combin a t above the section, th e .625. e lists each

– with no a d

- 2005-2210 5 tiation cont a e d on Dece m t ion. Please

liance & Qu a 3 rd Floor W H

O , Chicago, IL 6 p etitions the o f FAR 11.1 5 1 9(a)(1) & ( 2 er -the-top: D v e r -the-top u t ch release. airport are m ternate airp o a l at the des t

ation of the m airport elev a
eweather c o

required alt e

d ditions or c 5 , Exemptio n a ined in the m ber 23, 20 1

advise if a n

ality Control H QFO, Chi c

0606 Administrat o 5 and 11.63 2 ). D omestic o u nless he lis t

When the w m arginal at l o rt is requir e t ination airp o m , indicate
— ation; and
o nditions at t
e rnate airp o

c hanges. n No. 8653 G original peti t 1 3 remain th n y further inf o

l c ago, IL 606 0 or for a ren e . This
o perations.

t s at least o n w eather

l east one e d if for at l e o rt the

—

t he alternat e
o rt in the dis p

G will expire t ion dated h e same. f ormation is

0 6 e wal

n e
e ast 1

e p atch

on
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

AT ROAD, INC.

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 At Road, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Krish
Panu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



| | (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/ Krish Panu
Krish Panu
Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2002 |  |