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



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

In connection with the
quarterly report of Taylor Devices, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended November 30, 2002 to be filed with Securities and Exchange
Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas P. Taylor,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, 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 as of the dates and for the periods
covered by the Report.

It is not intended that this
statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.



|Date:
      January 14, 2003 | By: | s/ Douglas P. Taylor     
|---------------------------- | --- | -------------------------
|                             |     | Douglas P. Taylor,       
|                             |     | Chief Executive
  Officer

******CERTIFICATION**



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



****In connection
with the quarterly report of Taylor Devices, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB
for the period ended November 30, 2002 to be filed with Securities and Exchange
Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth G. Bernstein,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 as of the dates and for the periods
covered by the Report.

It is not intended that this
statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

|Date: January 14, 2003 | By: | s/ Kenneth G. Bernstein
|---------------------- | --- | -----------------------
|                       |     | Kenneth G. Bernstein,  
|                       |     | Chief Financial Officer
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3049 

To treat members of the Armed Forces who were killed or wounded in 

the November 5, 2009, attack at Fort Hood, Texas, or the June 1, 

2009, attack at Little Rock, Arkansas, as if the members were awarded 

the Purple Heart, to clarify the eligibility of such members for combatrelated special compensation, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 2, 2013 

Mr. ROONEY (for himself, Mr. CARTER, Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas, Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. WOLF, and Mr. MCCAUL) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To treat members of the Armed Forces who were killed 

or wounded in the November 5, 2009, attack at Fort 

Hood, Texas, or the June 1, 2009, attack at Little 

Rock, Arkansas, as if the members were awarded the 

Purple Heart, to clarify the eligibility of such members 

for combat-related special compensation, 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, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3049 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Justice for Fort Hood 

3 and Little Rock Heroes Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES 

5 WHO WERE KILLED OR WOUNDED IN THE NO6 VEMBER 5, 2009, ATTACK AT FORT HOOD, 

7 TEXAS, OR THE JUNE 1, 2009, ATTACK AT LIT8 TLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. 

9 (a) TREATMENT.—For purposes of all applicable 

10 Federal laws, regulations, and policies, an individual who, 

11 while a member of the Armed Forces, was killed or wound12 ed in a covered attack shall be treated as if the individual 

13 has been awarded a Purple Heart as of the date of the 

14 enactment of this Act. 

15 (b) COMBAT-RELATED SPECIAL COMPENSATION.— 

16 An individual who, while a member of the Armed Forces, 

17 was wounded in a covered attack shall be treated as an 

18 ‘‘eligible combat-related disabled uniformed services re19 tiree’’ under subsection (c) of section 1413a of title 10, 

20 United States Code, for purposes of determining the eligi21 bility of the individual for combat-related special com22 pensation paid under such section. 

23 (c) EXCEPTION.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall not 

24 apply to an individual whose death or wound as described 

25 in such subsection is the result of the willful misconduct 

26 of the individual. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3049 IH

1 (d) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—Congress encourages 

2 each State and local government to treat an individual de3 scribed in subsection (a) as eligible for any benefits pro4 vided by the State or local government to individuals by 

5 reason of the individual being killed or wounded while 

6 serving in the line of duty as a member of the Armed 

7 Forces. 

8 (e) COVERED ATTACK DEFINED.—In this section, 

9 the term ‘‘covered attack’’ means the following: 

10 (1) The attack that occurred at Fort Hood, 

11 Texas, on November 5, 2009. 

12 (2) The attack that occurred at a recruiting 

13 station in Little Rock, Arkansas, on June 1, 2009. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10-AA-1 Arrangement between Ford Motor Company and William Clay Ford,
      Jr. dated February 27, 2006.**


    Exhibit
      10-AA-1

    


    


    Arrangement
      between Ford Motor Company 

    and
      William Clay Ford, Jr. dated February 27, 2006

    


    


    On
      February 27, 2006, the Compensation Committee of Ford's Board of Directors
      and
      William Clay Ford, Jr., Ford's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, agreed
      to
      clarify the terms of Mr. Ford's compensation arrangements relating to Mr. Ford's
      eligibility to receive certain Restricted Stock Equivalents. In March 2005,
      the
      Compensation Committee approved an arrangement whereby one-half of the value
      of
      Mr. Ford's usual long-term incentive grant (normally a grant of stock options)
      was replaced with an opportunity to earn up to a target amount of Restricted
      Stock Equivalents based on his performance during 2005. Since the arrangement
      began in March 2005, the Committee did not intend that it would be covered
      by
      the May 11, 2005, agreement whereby Mr. Ford and the Committee agreed that
      Mr.
      Ford would forego any "new" compensation until the Company's Automotive sector
      has achieved sustainable profitability. Mr. Ford will not take part in any
      similar program or receive any salary, bonus, or long-term compensation for
      2006, unless allowed under the May 11, 2005 agreement. Mr. Ford has committed
      to
      donate shares representing any final award he receives from this 2005
      performance-based opportunity to charitable organizations of his choice when
      the
      restriction period lapses and the Restricted Stock Equivalents convert to
      unrestricted shares of common stock in 2007.
#### PURSIFULL v. WILLIAMSON.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 19, 1952.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing March 6, 1953.

E. B. Wilson, Pineville, H. H. Owens, Barbourville, for appellant.

Robert J. Watson, Middlesboro, for ap-pellee.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

John Watt Pursifull and his wife were the owners of an undivided one-half interest in a business property in Bell County. Gaines Williamson owned the other one-half interest. The property is called “Sharp’s Tourist Court,” but it appears that the property consists of a single three *467story building, which contains lodging rooms for tourists, a restaurant, and a package liquor store.

In an action in which the owners and various creditors were involved, the property was sold, and the claims of the various parties against the proceeds were determined. One of the claims was that of Williamson, against Pursifull, for one-half of the cost of certain repairs to. the property alleged to have been made by Williamson. The judgment allowed Williamson $2,000 on this claim, and Pursifull appeals from that part of the judgment.

Pursifull first maintains that the alleged repairs did not benefit the property, but actually put the property in worse condition than before. The evidence on this point was conflicting, and we cannot say that the chancellor’s finding was clearly erroneous.

Pursifull next contends that the alleged repairs were in fact improvements made for the sole benefit of a tenant, O. T. Seward, who held the property under a five-year lease from Pursifull and Williamson; that the lease obligated the tenant to “make such repairs as may be necessary to keep the premises in good condition;” and that Seward was merely a “front” for Williamson and a man named Marsee, who were the real, beneficial owners of the lease.

The evidence for Williamson was that the repairs njade by him vyere structural repairs necessary-to place the property in a tenantable condition, and were not such ordinary repairs as a tenant normally would be required to make; that Pursifull had agreed that the repairs be made; and that Williamson had no interest in Seward’s lease.

Pursifull’s evidence contradicted the evidence for Williamson on every point. Again, we cannot say that the chancellor’s findings were clearly erroneous.

The final contention of Pursifull is that the judgment is erroneous because it makes him liable for one-half of the cost of the repairs, although he owned only a one-quarter interest in the property, his wife owning the other one-quarter. As we understand the record, the proceeds of the sale of the property were paid into court, and the judgment merely determines how the proceeds are to be divided. Although the language of the paragraph of the judgment that deals with the item in question does make Pursifull individually liable, it is clear from the judgment as a whole that the effect is that Williamson shall be paid $21⁄8000 out of the Pursifull’s share of the proceeds. We so construe the judgment, and as so construed the judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001052971
<NAME>                        Iron Horse Investors, LLC
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              35,623
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       94,847
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                        330,373
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   467,841
<PP&E>                                             219,569
<DEPRECIATION>                                      20,660
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,246,083
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              438,044
<BONDS>                                            200,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                         136,741
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,246,083
<SALES>                                            342,627
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   342,627
<CGS>                                              324,123
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      363,628
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        68
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  15,622
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (36,259)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (36,259)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (36,259)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
FESTUS TILLMAN III,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-0100

_____________________________/

Opinion filed May 3, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Angela Cox, Judge.

Festus Tillman III, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, CJ., LEWIS and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3110 

To allow for the harvest of gull eggs by the Huna Tlingit people within 

Glacier Bay National Park in the State of Alaska. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To allow for the harvest of gull eggs by the Huna Tlingit 

people within Glacier Bay National Park in the State 

of Alaska. 

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 ‘‘Huna Tlingit Tradi5 tional Gull Egg Use Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITED AUTHORIZATION FOR COLLECTION OF 

7 GULL EGGS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior (re9 ferred to in this Act as the ‘‘Secretary’’) may allow the 

10 collection by members of the Hoonah Indian Association 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3110 IH

1 of the eggs of glaucous-winged gulls (Laurus glaucescens) 

2 within Glacier Bay National Park (referred to in this Act 

3 as the ‘‘Park’’) not more frequently than twice each cal4 endar year at up to 5 locations within the Park, subject 

5 to any terms and conditions that the Secretary determines 

6 to be necessary. 

7 (b) APPLICABLE LAW.—For the purposes of sections 

8 and 816 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conserva9 tion Act (16 U.S.C. 410hh–2, 3126), the collection of eggs 

10 of glaucous-winged gulls within the Park in accordance 

11 with subsection (a) shall be considered to be a use specifi12 cally permitted by that Act. 

13 (c) HARVEST PLAN.—The Secretary shall establish 

14 schedules, locations, and any additional terms and condi15 tions that the Secretary determines to be necessary for 

16 the harvesting of eggs of glaucous-winged gulls in the 

17 Park, based on an annual harvest plan to be prepared by 

18 the Secretary and the Hoonah Indian Association. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 208 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64209-64210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27552]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RT01-67-000]


GridFlorida LLC, Florida Power & Light Co., Florida Power 
Corporation, Tampa Electric Co., Notice of Filing

October 20, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 16, 2000, Florida Power & Light 
Company, Florida Power Corporation, and Tampa Electric Company 
(collectively, the Applicants), pursuant to Sections 203 and 205 of the 
Federal Power Act, jointly filed their Order No. 2000 compliance filing 
providing for the creation of a Regional Transmission Organization 
(RTO). The Applicants propose to form GridFlorida LLC, a for profit 
transmission company that will act as the RTO for the Florida 
Reliability Coordinating Council region.
    The Applicants explain that, while their Application is complete, 
implementation details remain to be resolved. The Applicants commit to 
continue the collaborative process established in Florida to address 
such details and to make an additional filing on December 15, 2000. At 
the same time, the Applicants are requesting a ruling from the 
Commission by December 15, 2000 on certain issues related to the 
formation of GridFlorida.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene, comments, or protest with the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such 
motions, comments and protests should be filed on or before November 
20, 2000. Protests will be considered by the commission to determine 
the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make 
protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a 
party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on 
file with Commission and are available for public

[[Page 64210]]

inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Beginning November 1, 2000, comments and protests may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27552 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

      In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the period from January
1, 2004 to December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date
indicated below, 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the period indicated.

      This Certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


      Dated: April 6, 2006                  By: /s/ Bruce Mogel
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Bruce Mogel
                                                Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.3


Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Rua Paraiba, 1.122 - 20(0) andar
30.130-141 - Belo Horizonte - MG
Brasil
                                                                  Deloitte
Telefone: (31) 3269 - 7400                                        Touche
Facsimile: (31) 3269 - 7470                                       Tohmatsu
www.deloitte.com.br




INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the use, in this Annual Report of Localiza Franchising Ltda. on
Form 20-F filed on June 30, 2003 (File No. 333-8128-01), which is incorporated
by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 filed on August 24, 2001
(Registration No. 333-13852-01), of our report dated March 14, 2003.



Belo Horizonte, Brazil

    June 30, 2003

/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Exhibit 10.21


 


SCHEDULE TO
EXHIBIT 10.21


 


Indemnification Agreements with Directors and Executive Officers


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name

  	
   

  	
  Date of Agreement

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Directors:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  David H. Batchelder

  	
   

  	
  January 25, 2002

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Michael R. D’Appolonia

  	
   

  	
  March 25, 2002

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  C. Scott Greer

  	
   

  	
  March 25, 2002

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Gail E. Hamilton

  	
   

  	
  August 16, 2005

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Stephen G. Hanks

  	
   

  	
  January 25, 2002

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  William H. Mallender

  	
   

  	
  March 25, 2002

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Michael P. Monaco

  	
   

  	
  March 25, 2002

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Cordell Reed

  	
   

  	
  March 25, 2002

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Dennis R. Washington

  	
   

  	
  January 25, 2002

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Dennis K. Williams

  	
   

  	
  March 25, 2002

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Officers:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Stephen M. Johnson

  	
   

  	
  January 25, 2002

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  George H. Juetten

  	
   

  	
  January 25, 2002

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Jerry K. Lemon

  	
   

  	
  October 13, 2003

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Larry L. Myers

  	
   

  	
  January 25, 2002

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Richard D. Parry

  	
   

  	
  January 25, 2002

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Cynthia M. Stinger

  	
   

  	
  January 25, 2002

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Craig G. Taylor

  	
   

  	
  January 25, 2002

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Earl L. Ward

  	
   

  	
  August 14, 2002

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Thomas H. Zarges

  	
   

  	
  January 25, 2002