alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                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 on Form 10-Q of SS&C
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 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.

 Date: August 14, 2003          By:/s/ William C. Stone

                                William C. Stone
                                Chief Executive Officer

 Date: August 14, 2003          By:/s/ Patrick J. Pedonti

                                Patrick J. Pedonti
                                Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q
pursuant to Item 601(b) (32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63
of title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-Q.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                               REGAN HOLDING CORP.
                 FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003
                 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I am the Chief  Executive  Officer of Regan Holding Corp., a California
corporation (the "Company"). I am delivering this certificate in connection with
the Company's  annual  report on Form 10-K for the year ended  December 31, 2003
("Form 10-K").

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, I hereby  certify  that,  to the best of my
knowledge,  the Form 10-K fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a)
or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained  in the Form 10-K  fairly  presents,  in all  material  respects,  the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: March 30, 2004
                                   /s/ Lynda L. Regan
                                   --------------------------
                                   Lynda L. Regan
                                   Chief 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 Regan  Holding
Corp.  and  will be  retained  by  Regan  Holding  Corp.  and  furnished  to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       52
*OPINION ISSUED OCTOBER 29, 2007*

#### BERNICE MOORE VS. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

(CC-07-145)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Jason C. Workman, Attorney at Law, for respondent

PER CURIAM:

Claimant brought this action for vehicle damage which occurred when her 1998 Buick Century struck a boulder while she was traveling northbound on State Route 4 in Braxton County, between Gassaway and Frametown, West Virginia. State Route 4 is a road maintained by respondent. The Court is of the opinion to deny this claim for the reasons more fully set forth below.

The incident giving rise to this claim occurred on January 8, 2007, at approximately 6:30 p.m. State Route 4 is a two-lane paved road with a speed limit of fifty-five miles per hour. Claimant was driving to a meeting in Gassaway in dry conditions when she spotted an object in the road that was about ten feet away from her *57vehicle. Claimant’s vehicle struck a boulder and sustained damages totaling $422.21. Ms. Moore’s insurance deductible is $100.

The position of the respondent is that it did not have notice of the boulder on State Route 4. Gary Moore, Assistant Supervisor for respondent in Braxton County, testified that a rock fall is an infrequent occurrence in the area in question and occurs only about twice a year. Consequently, there are no “falling rock” signs on this stretch of the road. Mr. Moore further testified that State Route 4 is a priority road, and respondent’s employees promptly remove rocks from this area as soon as it is notified.

It is a well-established principle that the State is neither an insurer nor a guarantor of the safety of motorists upon its highways. *Adkins v. Sims,*130 W.Va. 645, 46 S.E.2d 81 (1947). To hold respondent liable, claimant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent had actual or constructive notice of the road defect at issue and a reasonable amount of time to take corrective action. *Chapman v. Dept. of Highways,*16 Ct. Cl. 103 (1986); *Pritt v. Dept of Highways,*16 Ct. Cl. 8 (1985). In rock fall claims, this Court has held that the unexplained falling of a rock onto a highway without a positive showing that respondent knew or should have known of a dangerous condition posing injury to person orproperty is insufficient to justify an award. *Coburn v. Dept. of Highways,*16 Ct. Cl. 68 (1985).

In the present claim, claimant has not established that respondent failed to take adequate measures to protect the safely of the traveling public on State Route 4. Evidence adduced at the hearing established that the respondent did not receive any notice or complaints of rock falls along this stretch of State Route 4 prior to the claimant’s incident. While the Court is sympathetic to claimants’ plight, the fact remains that there is no evidence of negligence on the part of respondent upon which to base an award.

In accordance with the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated herein above, the Court is of the opinion to and does deny this claim.

Claim disallowed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001011701
<NAME> RIFKIN ACQUISITION CAPITAL CORP
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,191
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,009
<ALLOWANCES>                                       430
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         138,656
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,358
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 286,216
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        218,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,260
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   286,216
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,006
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,450
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (5,728)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,945
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    339
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,098)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,437
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,437
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>The amount shown for current assets and current liabilities is
zero due to an unclassified balance sheet in the financial
statements.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1252 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1252

            For the relief of Wahab Munir and Hunain Munir.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 2009

 Mr. Crowley introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            For the relief of Wahab Munir and Hunain Munir.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR WAHAB MUNIR AND HUNAIN MUNIR.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Wahab Munir and Hunain 
Munir shall each be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for 
adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of 
status to lawful permanent resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Wahab Munir or Hunain Munir enters 
the United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection 
(c), he or she shall be considered to have entered and remained 
lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment 
of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as 
of the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Wahab Munir and Hunain Munir, 
the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 
2, during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number 
of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 
that are made available to natives of the country of the aliens' birth 
under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Wahab Munir 
and Hunain Munir shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded 
any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1512 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1512

      To amend title 23, United States Code, to repeal provisions 
              establishing a national maximum speed limit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 1993

Mr. Sarpalius introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend title 23, United States Code, to repeal provisions 
              establishing a national maximum speed limit.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF NATIONAL MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT COMPLIANCE PROGRAM.

    Sections 141(a) and 154 of title 23, United States Code, are 
repealed.

                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5


<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                               4,809
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                       43,456
<ALLOWANCES>                         3,242
<INVENTORY>                         62,904
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   124,831
<PP&E>                              71,671
<DEPRECIATION>                      24,909
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     188,795
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              122,236
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                          2,724
<COMMON>                               125
<OTHER-SE>                          30,511
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       188,795
<SALES>                            622,867
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         0
<CGS>                              583,276
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    (3,086)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   8,617
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (19,175)
<INCOME-TAX>                        (1,435)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (17,740)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                       (17,740)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0

        

</TABLE>
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 LeCroy Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 2, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Thomas H. Reslewic, Chief Executive Officer 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 my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 16, 2011



/s/ Thomas H. ReslewicThomas H. ReslewicChief Executive Officer


A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 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.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1555

To terminate the Ground-Wave Emergency Network (GWEN) program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 31, 1993

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To terminate the Ground-Wave Emergency Network

(GWEN) program.

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

3 SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF THE GROUND-WAVE EMER4 GENCY NETWORK.

5 (a) TERMINATION OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary of

6 Defense shall terminate the Ground-Wave Emergency

7 Network (GWEN) program.

8 (b) FUNDING LIMITATION.—No funds may be obli9 gated or expended after the date of the enactment of this

10 Act under a contract for the Ground-Wave Emergency

11 Network program except as necessary for termination or
2

•HR 1555 IH

1 cancellation liability arising out of any such contract in

2 effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER01-414-000]

Take notice that on November 13, 2000, Consumers Energy Company (Consumers) and Michigan Electric Transmission Company (Michigan Transco), tendered for filing a Michigan Transco Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) which is to supersede, for the most part, Consumers' OATT (Consumers FERC Electric Tariff No. 6). The revision is to reflect the proposed transfer of Consumer's transmission assets to Michigan Transco. Copies of the filing were served upon all customers under Consumers' OATT and upon the Michigan Public Service Commission.

Consumers and Michigan Transco request that the filed OATT be allowed to take effect on the date of the transfer of those assets, expected to occur approximately February 1, 2001.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 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 and protests should be filed on or December 8, 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 the Commission and are available for public 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). 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. 00-31125  Filed 12-6-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### COLWELL v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.

No. 7159.

•Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

July 2, 1940.

Rehearing Denied July 16, 1940.

F. E. Zollars, James Barrett, Jr., and Joseph A. Bruggeman, all of Fort Wayne, Ind., (Zollars & Temple and-Barrett, Barrett & McNagny, all of Fort Wayne, Ind., of counsel), for appellant.

Wm. J. Reed and PaulE. Reed, both of Knox, Ind., and Paul M. Butler, of South Bend, Ind., for appellee.

Before EVANS, TREANOR, and KERNER, Circuit Judges.

EVANS, Circuit Judge.

Is this court justified in reversing a money judgment entered in a personal injury action in plaintiff’s favor upon a favorable general verdict, when the record shows the facts to be:

At 3 P. M., July 21, 1937, decedent, an employee of the W. P. A., was proceeding westerly .on W Street, which crosses the three tracks of defendant’s railroad in Winamac, Indiana, when he was struck by a passenger train and died shortly thereafter. An ordinance provided that no train should be operated in the municipality at a speed in excess of six miles per hour. The train which struck decedent was moving at sixty to eighty miles per hour.

The tracks curved shortly before and shortly after intersecting W Street so that an extended view of the right of way, was impossible. Obstacles which obscured a view of the oncoming train were a coal yard containing' coal piles, a coal conveyor and elevator, and still further, a lumber yard. A gondola car also was standing on the. side track and partially obstructed the view.

Decedent was traveling at a speed of four to five miles per hour. He had to cross a side track before he could get a view of the oncoming train which struck him.

Our answer to the query must be in the negative.

The train’s speed was excessive in view of the situation disclosed. This excessive speed, coupled with the obstructed view of the track upon which the train was coming, unquestionably made the question of defendant’s negligence one for the jury.

On the closer question, that of decedent’s contributory negligence, we are also satisfied that a question for the jury was presented. The facts bring this case within the ruling of the Court in Pokora v. Wabash Railway Co., 292 U.S. 98, 54 S.Ct. 580, 78 L.Ed. 1149, 91 A.L.R. 1049. Contributory negligence, too, was for the jury.

Other questions presented by defendant have been considered. We deem it unnecessary to discuss them or extendedly state the reasons for our rejection of them.

The judgment is affirmed.