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

                 STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER FURNISHED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The undersigned, Kim S. Price, is the President and Chief Executive Officer
of Citizens South Banking Corporation (the "Company").

     This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the
Company of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2005 (the "Report").

     By execution of this statement, I certify that:

          A)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
               or 78o(d)) and

          B)   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.

March 13, 2006                                  /s/ Kim S. Price
Dated                                           --------------------------------
                                                 Kim S. Price
                                                 President and Chief
                                                 Executive Officer

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that
this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this
statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

**               **Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Tab Products Co. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ending August 31, 2002 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersignedChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on their knowledge: 1) the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.

** **
|                                                           |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| **/s/ Gary W. Ampulski**                                       |
| **Gary W. Ampulski, President  & Chief Executive Officer** |
|                                                           |
|                                                           |
| **/s/ Donald J. Hotz**                                         |
| **Donald J. Hotz, Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer**   |
| **& Treasurer**                                            |
|                                                           |

** **

**October 11, 2002**

** **

** **

----
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,Thaddeus Dupper, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of my knowledge, the Annual Report of Evolving Systems, Inc. on Form 10-Kfor the annual period ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-Kfairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Evolving Systems, Inc.

 
| /s/ Thaddeus Dupper     |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|
|                    |
| Thaddeus Dupper         |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| March 12, 2008     |

 

This certificationis furnished with this Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent requiredby such Act, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification willnot be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extentthat we specifically incorporate it by reference.

 

----
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.14

On October 13, 2005, the Board approved amendments to its director compensation
package. As amended, directors of the Company will receive the following
compensation during 2006:

<Table>
<S>                                                                                    <C>
Annual Retainer                                                                        $40,000

Compensation for each Board or committee meeting attended                               $1,500
(subject to a 75% in-person attendance requirement)

Annual retainer for Chairman of the Audit Committee                                    $15,000

Annual retainer for Chairman of the Compensation Committee and the Corporate
Governance and Nominating Committee                                                    $10,000

Annual retainer for Lead Director                                                       $5,000
</Table>
**Exhibit 32.1****Certification of Chief Executive Officer**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) herebycertifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:     (i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal yearended December 31, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.          Dated:December 29, 2006 /s/ Jerry D. Chase          Jerry D. Chase    Chief Executive Officer  Theforegoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report oras a separate disclosure document.
#### Dvorak, Admx., Appellee, *v.*Kroupa et al., Appellants.

(No. 27843

Decided December 20, 1939.)

*Mr. Charles J. Vavrina,*for appellee.

*Mr. Alfred L. Steuer,*for appellants.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
#### TINSLEY v. STATE.

No. 26022.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 12, 1952.

*461No attorney on appeal.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was charged with a violation of the liquor law. He waived trial *by*jury and entered his plea before the court. He' was found guilty and assessed a fine of $250,

The record before us contains neither a statement of facts nor bill of exception. All proceedings appear regular and no error is reflected by the record.

The judgment is affirmedl
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S ANNUAL
REPORT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          67,846
<SECURITIES>                                    78,956
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,005
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,921
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               175,707
<PP&E>                                          20,198
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,253
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 187,652
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,805
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     151,340
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   187,652
<SALES>                                         18,618
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,599
<CGS>                                            1,194
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,271
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,728
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  28
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,694
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,330
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,364
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08
<FN>
For Purposes of This Exhibit, Primary Means Basic.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### BELCHER et al. v. HUNT et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 2, 1952.

*718E. J. Picklesimer, Pikeville, for appellants.

J. E. Childers, Russell Vanover, Pike-ville, for appellees.

CLAY, Commissioner.

This action was brought by appellees to recover possession of two tracts of land from which they had been evicted, and to recover damages for their eviction. The Chancellor restored possession and allowed $600 damages.

In 1930 appellees owned three tracts of land, which we shall designate 1, 2 and 3. In that year they mortgaged tract 3. About a year later the mortgage as foreclosed, and judgment was entered by default. By mistake the description in the judgment included tracts 1 and 2, as well as 3. This judgment was not appealed.

In 1938 the purchaser at the judicial sale assigned his interest to appellants, and a commissioner’s deed describing all three tracts was executed and delivered to them. In 1950 appellants had a writ of possession issued, and appellees were evicted by the sheriff. Some of their furniture and other personal property was damaged in the process.

The validity of the foreclosure judgment, insofar as it affected the title to tracts 1 and 2, is brought in question. Unless that judgment was void as to those tracts, it may not be attacked in this collateral proceeding.

It is elemental that a judgment must conform to the pleadings. Where the judgment grants relief beyond that prayed in a. petition, it is void as to the excessive relief granted and may be collaterally attacked. See 31 Am.Jur., Judgments, Sections 516, 587, 588.

Blackwdl &c v. Townsend &c., 91 Ky.. 609, 16 S.W. 587, appears conclusive on this-point. In that case it was said, 91 Ky. at page 613, 16 S.W. at page 588:

> “It is as essential that the land sold should substantially conform to that described in the petition as it is that the land should be described 'so that it may be identified.’ Upon a want of such conformity,- — -as if the sale is of a. different tract of land from that described in the petition, then the sale will be void.”

The foreclosure suit was brought to enforce the mortgage which only covered, tract 3. The petition is not before us, but we assume the only requested relief, as it should, related to this single tract. The court had no jurisdiction to adjudge foreclosure or to order a sale of any other tracts. To the extent the judgment did. affect the title to tracts 1 and 2, it was void.. Therefore the commissioner’s deed vested no title to this property in appellants.

Having reached the above conclusion, it is unnecessary to pass upon appellees apparently meritorious claim that having lived'on tracts 1 and 2 continuously since 1930,. they had title thereto by adverse possession.

Appellants contend the judgment' for damages was erroneous because they *719personally did not evict appellees. It is evident the sheriff was acting on their behalf and at their instigation, and the damage was caused by their wrongfully taking out a writ of possession.

The judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23. CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-115672, 333-45249 and 333-45251) and on Form
S-3 (No. 333-114730) of Getty Realty Corp. of our report dated March 9, 2006
relating to the financial statements, management's assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness
of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in the Annual Report
to Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We
also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 9, 2006
relating to the financial statement schedules, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New York, New York
March 14, 2006
# Contents

Data 1

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngc4w.htm

U.S. Energy Information Administration

infoctr@eia.doe.gov

# Data 1

Back to Contents
Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 24 Filed 11/13/20 Page 1 of 1
N OTE : This o rder is non precedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ RAYMOND E. STAUFFER, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

B ROOKS BROTHERS, INC. AND RETAIL BRAND ALLIANCE, INC. , Defendants

- Appellee s,

AND

U NITED STATES , Intervenor

- Appellee

.

______________________

2013

- 1180

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in No. 08

- CV

- 10 369, Judge Sidney H. Stein.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R
Raymond E. Stauffer moves without opposition for a n extension of time to file his reply brief. Case: 13-1180 Document: 59 Page: 1 Filed: 12/17/2013STAUFFER v. BROOKS BROTHERS
, INC

. 2

Upon consideration thereof,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The motion is granted. Stauffer's reply brief, if it has not already been filed, is due within 14 days of the date of this order.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court

s27 Case: 13-1180 Document: 59 Page: 2 Filed: 12/17/2013
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 208 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27574]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-38,137]


Vincennces Industries, Vincennces, IN; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on October 2, 2000, in response to a petition filed on 
behalf on workers at Vincennces Manufacturing, Vincennces, Indiana.
    The petitioning group of workers is subject to an ongoing 
investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued 
Vincennces Manufacturing, Vincennces, Indiana (TA-W-37,960). 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, D.C. this 6th day of October 2000.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-27574 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Barbara Riching, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Abgenix, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Dated:
March 11, 2004

| |  | /s/BARBARA RICHINGBarbara Riching Senior Director, Finance
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
### Re: Hexaflumuron Registration Review Galen Dively to: Russell Wasem 01/30/2012 04:14 PM History: This message has been replied to and forwarded.

Hi Rusty, As I explained on the phone, spiking the bait with a sports drink to enhance attractiveness to termites did raise some concern in my mind at my first look at this bait system. But after reviewing the in-ground and above ground products and their placement, I am convinced that bees would have no access to the bait, once the system is properly installed. Galen Dively On 1/30/2012 3:58 PM, Wasem.Russell@epamail.epa.gov wrote: > Good Afternoon Galen, > > Thank you for your letter. Upon review, we are wondering whether the > use of a sports drink to enhance bait attractiveness to termites was > considered in your conclusion that the HexPro bait system "will pose no > harm to Apis and non-Apis species"? Do you have any concerns about the > use of a sports drink in this termite baiting systems increasing the > attractiveness to pollinators? > > Thank you in advance for your assistance. > > Regards, > > Rusty____________ > __________ > Rusty Wasem / Chemical Review Manager > Risk Management& Implementation Branch 1* > Pesticide Re-evaluation Division* / Office of Pesticide Programs > 703 / 305 6979 > > > > From: Galen Dively<galen@umd.edu> > To: Russell Wasem/DC/USEPA/US@EPA > Date: 01/26/2012 05:50 PM > Subject: Hexaflumuron Registration Review > > > > Dear Dr. Wasem, > > Attached is a letter expressing my professional opinion of the potential > > bee exposure of hexaflumuron in Hex-Pro Termite Bait Stations. Thanks. > > Galen > (See attached file: Letter to Russell Wasem_EPA_HexPro Bait Station > Review.pdf)
ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

                             Independent Accountant's Report

To the Board of Directors of
Columbia National, Inc.:

We  have  examined  management's  assertion  about  Columbia  National,   Inc.'s
compliance  with the minimum  servicing  standards  identified  in the  Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE
BANKERS  (USAP) and that Columbia  National,  Inc. had in effect a fidelity bond
policy  and an errors and  omissions  policy in the  amount of  $10,000,000  and
$9,500,000,  respectively,  as of and for the  year  ended  December  31,  1997,
included in the accompanying  management's assertion. Management is responsible
for Columbia National,  Inc.'s compliance with those minimum servicing standards
and for  maintaining  a  fidelity  bond and  errors and  omissions  policy.  Our
responsibility  is to express an opinion on management's  assertion based on our
examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about Columbia National,  Inc.'s compliance
with the minimum servicing  standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination on Columbia  National,  Inc.'s  compliance with the minimum
servicing standards.

In our opinion,  management's  assertion that Columbia  National,  Inc. complied
with the aforementioned  minimum servicing standards and that Columbia National,
Inc. had in effect a fidelity bond policy and an errors and omissions  policy in
the amount of $10,000,000 and $9,500,000,  respectively,  as of and for the year
ended December 31, 1997 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

Washington, D.C.,                              /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
February 18, 1998
Exhibit 23 to 1997 Form 10-K

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS






               As  independent  public  accountants,  we hereby  consent  to the
incorporation  by reference  in this Form 10-K of our report  dated  January 26,
1998,  included in The  ServiceMaster  Company Annual Report to Stockholders for
the Year Ended  December 31,  1997.  It should be noted that we have not audited
any  financial  statements  of the Company  subsequent  to December 31, 1997, or
performed any audit procedures subsequent to the date of our report.


                                   /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

                                       Arthur Andersen LLP



Chicago, Illinois
March 26, 1998