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

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and accompanies the Annual Report on Form10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2003 of Horizon Offshore, Inc. (theCompany) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the Report). 

I, Bill J. Lam, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that:

1.        The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Act of 1934; and 

2.        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

| /S/ Bill J. Lam                                                                         |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Bill J. Lam 

President and Chief Executive    Officer

Dated: April 8, 2004    
  |
#### C. F. PHILLIPS v. STATE.

No. 24425.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 15, 1949.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1950.

Nat Gentry, of Tyler, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

*831DAVIDSON, Judge.

The conviction is for a violation of the Pure Food Law, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 706 et seq.; the punishment assessed, a fine of $150.

The case of Neill v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 225 S.W.2d 829, is, in all legal aspects, the same as that here presented.

The opinion in that case is here applicable, and reference is made thereto.

For the reasons there stated, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
From: Thomas Finseth

To: Wang, Daisy

Date: 12/6/2012 10:27 AM

Subject: Fwd: Wabash Valley Power: Non-CBI Information Submittal 

Attachments: WVPA NON-CBI submittal 12 6 12.pdf

Daisy,

Here are WVPA's comments on the site visit notes. We are expecting to receive a CBI version of their attachments. So the 

presentation that is included is considered nonCBI. We will need a CBI version, once we receive it, but only for the attachments.

>>> Terry Hogan <t_hogan@wvpa.com> 12/6/2012 9:32 AM >>>

Alicea & Thomas,

Attached are WVPA’s edited notes on the 2009 Site Visit along with the non-CBI portion of the Power Point Presentation (7 slides) 

conducted by the Plant Manager at the time of the site visit. I believe this constitutes a timely submittal based on your earlier 

email.

If you have questions, please contact me at 317-481-2839 or t_hogan@wvpa.com. 

Terry Hogan

Manager, Environmental Affairs

Wabash Valley Power

The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.

It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else

is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, 

distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is 

prohibited and may be unlawful. If you believe that you have received this

email in error, please contact the sender. E-mail transmission cannot be

guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted,

corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.

The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions 

in the contents of this message, or for any damage caused by any virus 

which arises as a result of e-mail transmission.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         690,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,400,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,363,000
<PP&E>                                      13,483,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,895,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,980,000
<BONDS>                                      7,201,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,476,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   (686,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,895,000
<SALES>                                      7,708,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,708,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,081,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             241,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (614,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (225,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (389,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0629

_________________

ALFRED DESCHAMPS, BAR II ENTERPRISES, 

L.L.C.,

 Plaintiffs and Appellants, 

 v.

FARWEST ROCK, LTD, FARWEST ROCK 

PRODUCTS, FARWEST PRODUCTS, LLC, 

LUNDE BASTON, MIKE BASTON, and DOES 

1-10,

 Defendants and Appellees.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Elizabeth Best, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 9 2020

09/09/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0629
### ' i ) c~ ' T- o, 5; T - \ ~ 

# cn- d

- ' 1 0 lc . 

### b c :n - - cs T - I 

### q ( t 

## - -1 -d~-: :9l

From: To: Subject: Date: D av i d G u r r E AS C O ST) D OT - O S T-1997- 2 7 0 6 Th u rs d ay , A ugust 22 , 2013 3: 1 8 : 0 3 PM I would like to protest the change from great lakes to sky west we travel to Denver for work all the time on great lakes this would be an inconvenience for the oil and gas people in vernal. Thanks David Gurr JD Field Services 

### 4357811242

1 , .. . __ ' '') Sent from my Android
that Braecklein be suspended from the practice of law for six months and

one day and, as a condition of reinstatement, that Braecklein be required to retake the MPRE and attend at least 3 hours of CLE specifically relating to the handling of IOLTA trust accounts. Finally, the panel recommended that Braecklein be required to pay the costs associated with the proceedings, pursuant to SCR 120.

This court's automatic review of a disciplinary panel's findings and recommendations is de novo, SCR 105(3)(b); In re Discipline of Stuhff, 108 Nev. 629, 633, 837 P.2d 853, 855 (1992), and therefore we "must examine the record anew and exercise independent judgment," In re Discipline of Schaefer, 117 Nev. 496, 515, 25 P.3d 191, 204 (2001). Although we are not bound by the disciplinary panel's recommendations, those recommendations are persuasive. Id. The State Bar has the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that Braecklein committed the violations charged. In re Discipline of Drakulich, 111 Nev. 1556, 1566, 908 P.2d 709, 715 (1995). In determining the appropriate discipline, this court considers four factors: "the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors." In re Discipline of Lerner, 124 Nev. 1232, 1246, 197 P.3d 1067, 1077-78 (2008).

While we conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the panel's findings of misconduct, we do not agree that the panel's recommended discipline is commensurate with the misconduct committed. Accordingly, we hereby suspend Judith Braecklein from the

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I94ThGibbons , J

, J.

Pickering practice of law for one year commencing from the date of this order. We further approve the reinstatement conditions recommended by the hearing panel with the added condition that restitution, if any, be paid in full. Finally, Braecklein shall pay the costs associated with the disciplinary proceedings within 30 days from her receipt of the State Bar's bill of costs,



### see SCR 120, and shall comply with SCR 115 and SCR 116. The State Bar shall comply with SCR 121.1.

It is so ORDERED.

cc: Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board Judith H. Braecklein Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada Perry Thompson, Admissions Officer, U.S. Supreme Court

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947.4 es.
#### Ex parte HERRING.

No. 25719.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 6, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Relator alleges as a ground for the granting of his application for writ of habeas corpus that on January 18, 1940, he plead guilty in a capital case in Bell County, waived a jury, and was sentenced by the trial court for a term of not less than two nor more than ninety-nine years in the state penitentiary.

It is shown herein by an instrument filed by the General Manager of the state penitentiary that relator has heretofore been convicted in Bell, Bosque, Madison and *706Lampasas Counties, as well at the Bell County conviction, and that at the present time relator is still serving portions of the convictions in other counties; that he has approximately seven years and nine months to serve on a conviction from Harris County.

Relator is not entitled to relief at this time. The validity of the Bell County judgment does not affect relator’s incarceration under the Harris County conviction. Only if relator’s confinement in the penitentiary rested alone upon the Bell County judgment would this court order his discharge thereunder. See Ex parte Padgett, Tex.Cr.App., 230 S.W.2d 813; Ex parte Neisler, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 26, 69 S.W.2d 422; Ex parte Kemp, Tex.Cr.App., 230 S.W.2d 232; Ex parte Richardson, Tex.Cr.App., 230 S.W.2d 538.

The writ of habeas corpus is refused.
EX-10.7
                              PROMISSORY NOTE

                              PROMISSORY NOTE

Principal amount $41,795.94                    Date: February 13, 2004

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, RMD Technologies, Inc. hereby promise to
pay to the order of Patrick A. Galliher the sum of Forty One Thousand
Seven Hundred Ninety Five Dollars and Ninety Four Cents, together with
interest thereon at the rate of 1% per month on the unpaid balance.
Said sum shall be paid upon demand.

     This note shall at the option of any holder thereof be
immediately due and payable upon the occurrence of any of the
following:  1) Breach of any condition of any security interest,
mortgage, loan agreement, pledge agreement or guarantee granted as
collateral security for this note. 2) Breach of any condition of any
loan agreement, security agreement or mortgage, if any, having a
priority over any loan agreement, security agreement or mortgage on
collateral granted, in whole or in part, as collateral security for
this note. 3) Upon the death, incapacity, dissolution or liquidation
of any of the undersigned, or any endorser, guarantor to surety
hereto. 4) Upon the filing by any of the undersigned of an assignment
for the benefit of creditors, bankruptcy or other form of insolvency,
or by suffering an involuntary petition in bankruptcy or receivership
not vacated within thirty (30) days.

     In the event this note shall be in default and placed for
collection, then the undersigned agree to pay all reasonable attorney
fees and costs of collection. All payments hereunder shall be made to
such address as may from time to time be designated by any holder.

     The undersigned and all other parties to this note, whether as
endorsers, guarantors or sureties, agree to remain fully bound until
this note shall be fully paid and waive demand, presentment and
protest and all notices hereto and further agree to remain bound,
notwithstanding any extension, modification, waiver, or other
indulgence or discharge or release of any obligor hereunder or
exchange, substitution, or release of any collateral granted as
security for this note. No modification or indulgence by any holder
hereof shall be binding unless in writing; and any indulgence on any
one occasion shall not be an indulgence for any other or future
occasion. Any modification or change in terms, hereunder granted by
any holder hereof, shall be valid and binding upon each of the
undersigned, notwithstanding the acknowledgement of any of the
undersigned, and each of the undersigned does hereby irrevocably grant
to each of the others a power of attorney to enter into any such
modification on their behalf. The rights of any holder hereof shall be
cumulative and not necessarily successive. This note shall take effect
as a sealed instrument and shall be construed, governed and enforced
in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

RMD Technologies, Inc.


By: /s/  Pat Galliher
Pat Galliher, President
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 211 (Tuesday, October 31, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27889]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Prospective Grant of Exclusive License: Insulin Producing Cells 
Differentiated From Non-Insulin Producing Cells by GLP-1 and Exendin-4 
and Use Thereof; Correction

    The notice published in the October 17, 2000 Federal Register (65 
FR 61352)--announcing the prospective grant of an exclusive license for 
use of insulin producing cells differentiated from non-insulin 
producing cells--incorrectly listed the PCT Patent Application Serial 
Number as ``PCT/US99/180899'' and the PHS Ref. as ``E-151-97/1''. NIH 
is publishing this notice to correct the PCT application number to read 
``E-251-97/1''.

    Dated: October 23, 2000.
Jack Spiegel,
Director, Division of Technology Development and Transfer, Office of 
Technology Transfer.
[FR Doc. 00-27889 Filed 10-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# Properly· Inflated LJnderinflatecl/ OVerloaded

# Hennos.dio

0 No.HNOC-.7'-$.1l.S **Gr.J~** 

# Chihuahua

0 

## C!~;ut 

# c....

1 

## umemoc Oe11CW::i

0 

# CHJ~ CJmargo



## Luoboc.:.:.

0 

## Midland

0


## Abilene

c 

# Texas

### 1075 

### lOS 

### 100 90 t15



# -···········

........

**;.~**



### 75.00 70.00 

### 65.00

-. 'innl!r 0"'."11-Tirt> Pr('"'"_.sur!' 

## ~··· •Owts.ide AkTemp 

### 50.00 45.00 

# ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"40.00 7:55AM S:l.SAM l'0:.04AM 10:SSAM 11!51AM **12~S1AM** 2:3<;PM 5:51PM

7:51AM 9:51AM 11:53 AM 1;55 PM 1:51 PM 4:58: PM 8:3.DAM 8:58AM :9:55AM 12:2PM

# 8,000 7,000 

# g 6,000 

# c 5,000 0 

# ~ 

# 4,000 **~** 

# 3,000 Uj 

# 2,000

100 1,000 

# t- ...... KCRP

KSAT KERV

KVHN



# KDMN



# KTUS

KSDL•4CCC""3CCC2CCCi5CCiCCCou..!.Tlt,.'"""'r..Pr..•107.SlllS102.5100>7S95S2.S"87S..·.....'?:SlAM3>:51AMll:S3AMl:SSPM2:51PM4:SdPM30.2030.1530.10--out::er:Ch•ai-TirePre:o:o..re30.05•JnnouDu.:a!-TirePressure30.002:1.952$-.S$445/50R22.5 9/9/2013 -os,oo

HEB PSI Test 8/15(2014 3'38,15

PM Typical Week
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**498 CA 12-02137** 
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

SAMUEL TOMAINO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THOMAS MAROTTA, JR., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

ATHARI & ASSOCIATES, LLC, UTICA (MO ATHARI OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

KENNEY SHELTON LIPTAK NOWAK LLP, BUFFALO (RYON D. FLEMING OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered March 13, 2012. The order, among other things, denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action alleging that he sustained injuries as a result of exposure to lead paint in a house owned by defendant. Following trial, the jury concluded that defendant was negligent, but that his negligence was not a substantial factor in causing injury to plaintiff. Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict as inconsistent. “A jury finding that a party was negligent but that such negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent . . . only when the issues are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause” ( Skowronski v Mordino
, 4 AD3d 782, 783 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Ellis v Borzilleri , 41 AD3d 1170, 1170-1171). Here, defendant’s expert testified that plaintiff was not damaged at all by his exposure to lead paint. The fact that the jury found that defendant was negligent but that his negligence was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries thus is not logically impossible ( see Cunningham v Anderson , 85 AD3d 1370, 1373-1375, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 17 NY3d 948). The jury was entitled to conclude that any effects of lead poisoning only minimally affected plaintiff and that any injuries sustained by him could have been caused by other factors ( see id. at 1375).

Entered: May 3, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### CHADD v. STATE.

No. 24730.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 5, 1950.

None on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The record in this case contains no caption showing when the term of court began and when it ended.

*857The court’s charge to the jury states that defendant was indicted for the offense of bigamy, but the record contains no copy of the indictment.

We have no jurisdiction of the case and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
#### Commonwealth *ex*rel. Dickson, *v.*Ashe, Warden.

October 4, 1939:

Per Curiam,

The relator was tried and convicted in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Crawford County on two indictments, to wit, 19 February Sessions 1938, charging him with robbery, and 19a February Sessions, 1938, charging him with burglary. He was sentenced on the charge of robbery to undergo imprisonment in the Western Penitentiary at separate and solitary confinement at labor for a minimum term of not less than two and a half years and a maximum term of five years, to be computed from December ,7, 1937; and on the charge of burglary, to undergo a like imprisonment in said penitentiary for a minimum term of four years and a maximum term of ten years, to be computed from the expiration of the sentence for robbery, at No. 19. He was accordingly committed.

Citing the decision of this court in *Com. ex rel. Wendell v. Smith,*123 Pa. Superior Ct. 113, 186 A. 810, the relator contends that the robbery, which occurred at the same place and immediately following the burglary was merged with the burglary and could not be separately punished.

We pointed out in the Wendell case, supra, that the *221crime of burglary is committed and completed just as soon as the actor breaks by night into the dwelling house mentioned in the indictment, with intent to commit a felony, whether that intent be executed or not; and that the commission of a felony immediately after such breaking and entering would seem to constitute a separate and distinct crime, for which he could be separately punished. But we further pointed out that in *Com. v. Birdsall,*69 Pa. 482, 485, the Supreme Court had held that where a defendant is indicted in one count for breaking and entering, with intent to steal, and in a second count for larceny, if it appeared ir the record that the breaking and entering and the larceny charged in the separate counts were done ai one and £he same time, they could not be punished as separate offenses.

However, in *Com. ex rel. H. Franell v. Ashe,*134 Pa. Superior Ct. 96, 3 A. 2d 931, we refused to extend the ruling in the Birdsall case, supra, beyond its own facts, and held that where the felonious breaking and entering is followed by a separate and distinct felony *involving force and personal violence,*they are not merged and the defendant may be separately sentenced on both.

The present case is governed by the decision in the Franell case rather than the Wendell case.

The rule is discharged and the petition is refused.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 16, 2015

No. 04-14-00110-CV

Mary MOCZYGEMBA,

Appellant

v.

Thomas J. MOCZYGEMBA and Harry Lee Moczygemba,

Appellees

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-10-0573-CVW

Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Appellant Mary Moczygemba’s Motion for En Banc Reconsideration is DENIED.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of June, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**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 European Micro Holdings, Inc. (the
“ Company ”)
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”),
      the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates 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 to his knowledge:




1.  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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




Date: 
              October 16, 2006
            By:
            */s/* *Jay
              P. Nash*Name:Jay
                P. Nash
                Title:Chief
                  Financial Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, 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 European Micro Holdings, Inc. and will
      be
      retained by European Micro Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.