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

In
connection with this Quarterly Report of UnionBanCal Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Masaaki Tanaka, President and 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, to my knowledge:



Dated:
November 12, 2009

By:

/s/ MASAAKI TANAKA Masaaki Tanaka Chief Executive Officer


---



QuickLinks
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 this  Quarterly  Report  of  UnionBanCal  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, David
I.  Matson,  Chief  Financial  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 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.



Dated:  August 14, 2003




                              By:          /S/ DAVID I. MATSON
                                   -----------------------------------------
                                               David I. Matson
                                           Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,614
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,709
<ALLOWANCES>                                       475
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         918,545
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,490
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 985,269
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           263
<OTHER-SE>                                     453,805
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   985,269
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                88,013
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   62,317
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,515
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,456
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    111
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,345
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.10
        

</TABLE>
#### BEVILLE v. CITY OF LONGVIEW.

No. 5467.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.

July 13, 1939.

Rehearing Denied July 20, 1939.

*314Giles Harris, of Longview, for plaintiff in error.

Stinchcomb, Kenley & Sharp and Fred Erisman, all of Longview, for defendant in error.

WILLIAMS, Justice.

Members of the police department of the city of Longview, a municipal corporation, caught up and placed in its pound pen a stray mule roaming at large within its corporate limits. Thereafter the police department released the mule upon payment of the pound fee to a third party who fraudulently represented that he was the owner of the mule 'and that it had escaped from his premises near Greggton in said county. This third party, who gave his name as J. M. Davis, thus obtained possession. He has converted the mule to his own use and benefit by disappearing with the mule to parts unknown, leaving no trace of himself or the mule. In this suit Fred Beville, the owner of the mule, seeks to recover from said city a judgment for its value under the “respondeat superior” rule, asserting that the police were negligent in surrendering this mule to a person they were unacquainted with, without first obtaining proof that such third person was the true owner. The jury was instructed to return a verdict for defendant.

Under the provisions of Section 16, Article 1015, R.C.S. of 1925, defendant had established a public pound and duly passed an ordinance to restrain and prohibit mules and other live stock to roam at large within its corporate limits. The enactment of this ordinance was an exercise by the city of its police power, in the discharge of its governmental function. It was enacted in the interest and welfare of the public at large. Under this record, quoting from Whitfield v. City of Paris, 84 Tex. 431, 19 S.W. 566, 567, 15 L.R.A. 783, 31 Am.St.Rep. 69, “The maxim re-spondeat superior does not apply. Where-a city acts as the agent of the state, it becomes the representative of sovereignty. It is not acting in the management of its private or corporate concerns, but in the-interest of the public * * *. Under such circumstances, it is not liable for the acts of its officers * * * engaged in-the execution of its ordinances.” See, also, Smith v. Arnold, Tex.Civ.App., 251 S.W. 315, and authorities there collated.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Virginia John IDEN, Appellant, v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 4618.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

March 14, 1940.

John W. Cleaton, of Washington, D. G, for appellant.

R. A. Bickers, of Culpeper, Va., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Cause docketed and dismissed on motion of 'appellee. Order filed.
# Официален вестник C 42A/9 фе

| | ISSN 1977-0855 |
| --- | --- |
| Официален вестник
  на Европейския съюз | C 42A |
| | |
| Издание на български език | Информация и известия | Година 609 февруари 2017 г. |

ISSN 1977-0855

Официален вестник

на Европейския съюз

C 42A

Издание на български език

Информация и известия

Година 609 февруари 2017 г.

---

| Известие No | Съдържание | Страница |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Становища |
| | АДМИНИСТРАТИВНИ ПРОЦЕДУРИ |
| | Евроюст |
| 2017/C 42 A/01 | Обява за длъжността административен директор на Евроюст (степен AD 14) — Хага (Нидерландия) — 17/EJ/01 | 1 |

Известие No

Съдържание

Страница

V   Становища

АДМИНИСТРАТИВНИ ПРОЦЕДУРИ

Евроюст

2017/C 42 A/01

Обява за длъжността административен директор на Евроюст (степен AD 14) — Хага (Нидерландия) — 17/EJ/01

1

---

| BG | |
| --- | --- |

BG

---

V Становища

АДМИНИСТРАТИВНИ ПРОЦЕДУРИ

Евроюст

| 9.2.2017 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | CA 42/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2017

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

CA 42/1

---

Обява за длъжността административен директор на Евроюст (степен AD 14) — Хага (Нидерландия) — 17/EJ/01

(2017/C 042 A/01)

Евроюст отправя покана към заинтересованите лица да кандидатстват за длъжността административен директор на Евроюст. Евроюст е създаден през 2002 г. за засилване ефективността на компетентните власти на държавите членки в борбата с тежката трансгранична и организирана престъпност. Евроюст се състои от колегиален орган от прокурори, съдии или полицейски служители, които отговарят за неговата организация и дейност. Административният директор е отговорен, под ръководството на председателя на колегиалния орган, за ежедневното управление на Евроюст и неговите служители. Моля, посетете нашия уебсайт за по-подробната обява и процедура за кандидатстване:

http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/careers/vacancies/Pages/Vacancies.aspx

Крайният срок за кандидатстване е 17 март 2017 г. в полунощ Централно европейско време.

---
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 16

- 00202

- CR

Jordan Bajonero

- Palma

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 362nd District Court

of Denton County (F

- 2014

- 2221

- D)

August 18, 2016

Opin ion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for

want of jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

Justice Lee Gabriel
<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-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                               3,214
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                       40,269
<ALLOWANCES>                           950
<INVENTORY>                         84,216
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   138,427
<PP&E>                              57,653
<DEPRECIATION>                      21,997
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     192,122
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              118,458
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                          2,756
<COMMON>                               125
<OTHER-SE>                          48,305
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       192,122
<SALES>                            590,480
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         0
<CGS>                              556,030
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   (20,241)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   5,940
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      5,750
<INCOME-TAX>                         3,678
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  2,072
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                         2,072
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0

        

</TABLE>
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting.

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Design, Manufacture, and Industrial Innovation—(1194).                    

*Date and Time:*                         January 6, 2001, 8:00 am-5:30 pm.                    

*Place:*                         Hyatt Regency Westshore Hotel, Tampa, FL.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Ronald Rardin, Program Directors, DMII, (703) 292-8330, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate Unsolicited proposals as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information, financial data such as salaries, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: December 1, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-31271 Filed 12-7-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2011-0811 SNPRM

Directorate ID: 2011-CE-026-AD

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

 NO COMMENTS RECEIVED – If this box is checked, no signatures are required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:

If NO, we don’t agree because 
Page 2 of 3

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Date

Branch Manager Date
EXHIBIT 10.1 




Table of
Inducement Stock Option Grants 



 
        From
time to time, as an inducement to employment, the registrant has granted to certain of its
employees that are not executive officers non-qualified stock options in accordance with
individual compensation arrangements that have not been approved by the registrant’s
security holders (collectively, the “Inducement Options”). All Inducement
Options are documented pursuant to the form of Inducement Grant Notice and Inducement
Stock Option Agreement filed as Exhibit 4.1 to the registrant’s Form 8-K filed on
September 28, 2004. 



 
        The
table set forth below lists the Inducement Options granted by the registrant to certain of
its employees that are not executive officers, and the principal terms thereof. Each of
the following options is a non-statutory option, has a five year term and vests 25% on the
first anniversary of the grant date and then quarterly thereafter for the next 12
quarters, subject to continued employment and other conditions. 



	Date of Grant	Shares
Underlying
Option	Exercise
Price
	9/21/04	3,500	$6.14
	9/21/04	15,000	$6.14
	9/21/04	1,000	$6.14
	9/21/04	10,000	$6.14
	9/21/04	17,500	$6.14
	10/26/04	2,500	$6.21
	10/26/04	12,500	$6.21
	10/26/04	5,000	$6.21
	11/16/04	1,500	$6.70
	11/16/04	2,500	$6.70
	12/22/04	6,000	$10.06
	12/22/04	18,000	$10.06
	12/22/04	20,000	$10.06
	12/22/04	5,000	$10.06
	12/22/04	2,500	$10.06
	12/22/04	25,000	$10.06
	1/25/05	20,000	$9.48
	1/25/05	2,000	$9.48
	1/25/05	8,000	$9.48
	1/25/05	15,000	$9.48
	1/25/05	12,000	$9.48
	3/16/05	12,000	$8.40
	3/16/05	12,000	$8.40
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 Ross Systems,  Inc. (the "Company") Annual Report on Form
10-K/A for the  period  ended June 30,  2003 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Verome M. Johnston,
Chief  Financial  Officer  (principal  financial and accounting  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, as amended; 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: January 20, 2004


                                       /s/ Verome M. Johnston
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Verome M. Johnston
                                       Chief Financial Officer
The HONORA BLE CHARLES R. WOLLE, Chief Judge of the United States 1 District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-4240

___________ Jesse James Jackson, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Jeff Shipley, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: November 4, 1998 Filed: November 9, 1998

___________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Iowa inmate Jesse James Jackson commenced this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1 983, alleging that Keokuk County Deputy Sheriff Jeff Shipley violated Jackson’ s Fou rthAmendment rights by arresting him on February 14, 1996, without a vali d warrant or probable cause to arrest. Jackso n appeals the district court & s adverse grant 1 of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. We affirm.-2-

It is undisputed that, before arresting Jackson, Shipley contacted the Mahaska County Sheriff

& s Department and was told that the department had an outst anding arrest warrant for Jackson, a resident of Maha ska County, and that Jackson was supposed to turn h imself in on February 15. Shipley, who was investigating a Keokuk Count y homicide, knew that Keokuk County some times allowed persons to turn themselves in after an arrest warrant had been issued. Shipley arrested Jackson at Jackson & s home based upon the Mahaska County arrest warrant. Only later did Shipley learn tha t Mah aska County had not issued an arrest warrant, only a “mittimus” to arrest an d transport Jackson to the town of Oakdale.

The d istrict court concluded that Shipley was entitled to qualified immunit y because he could reasonably have believed that a Mahaska County arrest warran t existed a nd that he had the authority to arrest Jackson under that warrant. Havin g reviewed the grant of summary judgment and the issue of qualified immunity de novo,
see Wh ite v. Holmes , 21 F.3d 277, 279 (8th Cir. 1994), we agree that Shipley & s conduct as arresting officer was objectively reasonable. See Anderson v. Creighton , 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987); Gainor v. Rogers , 973 F.2d 1379, 1382 (8th Cir. 1992 ) (qualified immunity standard i s arresting officer & s objective reasonableness). Because Shipley h ad a reasonable basis to believe that there was an outstanding Mahask a County warrant for Jackson & s arrest, Shipley did not knowingly and recklessly violate Jackson & s Fourth Amendment rights in making the arrest. See Edwards v. Baer , 863 F.2d 606, 607-08 (8th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1749 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1749

   To restore Americans' individual liberty by striking the Federal 
                     mandate to purchase insurance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 3, 2017

   Mr. Hatch introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To restore Americans' individual liberty by striking the Federal 
                     mandate to purchase insurance.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``American Liberty Restoration Act''.

SEC. 2. RESTORING INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

    (a) Repeal of Requirement To Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage.--
            (1) In general.--The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
        amended by striking chapter 48 (and the item related to such 
        chapter in the table of chapters).
            (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
        shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2016.
    (b) Repeal of Reporting of Health Insurance Coverage.--
            (1) In general.--Part III of subchapter A of chapter 61 of 
        the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
        subpart D (and the item related to such part in the table of 
        parts for such subchapter).
            (2) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (c) of section 1502 
        of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed.
            (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
        shall apply to calendar years beginning after December 31, 
        2016.
                                 <all>
```
Clayton Houchin

Buttonwillow Warehouse Company

P.O. Box 98

Buttonwillow, CA 93206

Joe Bavaro

Bavaro Farming Company

P.O. Box 511

Escalon, CA 95320

Richard Matoian

American Pistachio Growers

7030 N. Fruit Ave., Suite 117

Fresno, CA 93711

- 0782chouchin@techag.com

alexanders@helenachemical.com

amachado@midvalleyag.com

bhanson@ucdavis.edu

gmusson@gtipros.com

mikestrmiska@yahoo.com

bob@cacitrusmutual.com

shushbeck@wilburellis.com

szkurthe@ad3.ucdavis.edu

ceidsath@walnuts.org

Levin.nancy@epamail.epa.gov

akatten@crlaf.org

cvaladez@cgtl.com

pstever@tulcofb.org

slandfair@mckennalong.com

blbret@dow.com

rcurtis@almondboard.com

roger@agproce ssors.org

afiqurk@healthyplants.org

jsteggall@cdfa.ca.gov

khensley@esgllc.net

Bradley.Schrenk@simplot.com

sdugo@midvalleyag.com ( 3* )

mpf@stateside.com (request to be notified )

- Melissa Martin

* Bulehuas, Peter

Gurlo, Anthony

Eric Vangroningen