alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of PACE Health Management Systems, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John
Pappajohn, Acting Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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; and
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) |  | The
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/ John Pappajohn                                                                             
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | John PappajohnActing Principal Executive Officer and
Acting Chief Financial OfficerMay 12, 2005

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to and will be retained by PACE Health
Management Systems, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.1


CERTIFICATIONS





I, Brian Bronson, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Radisys Corporation for the fiscal year ended


December 31, 2012; and





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.





RADISYS CORPORATIONDate: April 26, 2013By:/s/ Brian BronsonBrian BronsonChief Executive Officer, President, and Director
Hello, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Adeline Rolnick, and I work for the National Wildlife Federation. As a supporter ofEPA's cleanpower plan, I am here to read a statement for the record byDick Pinney ofNew Hampshire, who couldn'tbe here today. This is Dick's statement: My name is Richard B. Pinney, a/k/a Dick Pinney. I am a licensed New Hampshire fishing guide. I've lived on the shores ofNew Hampshire's tidal water Great Bay for over 50 years, not counting the time spent at my grandmother's camp on "the Bay" where I learned to swim at age four. I supportthe EPA's efforts to curb carbon emissions from powerplants underthe Clean Power Plan.

In all those years we've seen tremendous changes to boththe Bay and surrounding areas, and not that many have beenpositive. As a kid werememberthat "ice-in" on Great Bay was always before New Year's day, an eventthat allowed hundreds ofice fishermen,
some commercial and mostly recreational, to go out on the ice onthat holiday. Their quarry was the incredible schools ofsaltwater smelt that flooded the iced-overbayto feed and, in the spring, run up the Great Bay's freshwater tributaries to spawn.

In the 1960s, as a New Hampshire natural resource enforcement officer, it was my duty to patrol this ice bound community ofoften as many as 500 portable ice fishing houses, known as "shanties" to all ofus local people. There were some ice anglers thatcame as far as a hundred miles to fish here. And many ofthethousands ofthem supplemented their incomes with the sale oftheirhook-and-line smelt catches, that inthe earlier days were often caught in huge nets dropped through the ice as well as caughtby hook and line. Catches ofa hundred pounds ormore were notable, but not that rare.
I have witnessed the practical disappearance ofice on Great Bay overthe last couple of decades as ourwinters have warmed thanks to more carbon in the atmosphere. In fact in 2012 there was NO good ice all winter. Wehave lost a tremendously important winter fishery.
Waterfowl too havebeenimpactedby our changing season. I find that ducks and geese are migrating to the Baylater each year. We duckhunters actually had to get the state Fish and Game Department to adjust ourlate waterfowl season to end in mid January rather than late December as had been tradition to accommodate this late migration. So warming falls and winters are impacting ourhunting and fishing opportunities and really impacting the economy here along New Hampshire's coast. I applaud EPA for taking action to combat the root oftheproblem--:- carbon pollution-andI hope you will do everything you can to ensure a strong final standard. Thank you.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report of Open Solutions Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Louis Hernandez, Jr., Chairman of the Board 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:

            (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: March 15, 2006                     /s/ LOUIS HERNANDEZ, JR.
                              -------------------------------------------------

                                             Louis Hernandez, Jr.
                              Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Operating Partners 1995-B, Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of operations con-
tained in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         1,869,202
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  35,720
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,932,371
<PP&E>                                         642,395
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (79,473)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,495,293
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          11,847
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,483,446
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,495,293
<SALES>                                        27,632
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               55,081
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  15,560<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                31,961
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            31,961
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   31,961
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expenses, production taxes and depreciation,
depletion and amortization expense.  Excludes general and administrative and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 6, 2015

No. 04-14-00564-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF WADE R. BEDELL, JR., Deceased,

From the Probate Court No 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-PC-0636

Honorable Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief has this date been received 

and filed in the above styled and numbered cause. Extension of time to file the Appellant’s brief 

is this date GRANTED. Time is extended to April 13, 2015.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ____________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE

CLERK OF COURT

cc: John Wennermark

1924 N Main Ave.

San Antonio, TX 78212-3942

James W. Carter, IV

Langley & Banack, Inc.

745 E. Mulberry, Suite 900

San Antonio, TX 78212

Robinson C. Ramsey

Langley & Banack, Inc.

Trinity Plaza II Suite 900

San Antonio, TX 78212-3141
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 8, 2011

0405 

# Order

April 8, 2011

138636 (49)

SHERRI MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 138636 COA: 280267 Emmet CC: 05-009021-NH DAVID LEDINGHAM, M.D., DAVID RYNBRANDT, M.D., ANDRIS KAZMERS, M.D., and PETOSKEY SURGEONS, P.C., Defendants,

and

NORTHERN MICHIGAN HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for rec onsideration of this Court’s December 10, 2010 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
Exhibit 10.1









Exhibit
10.1




Warrant
Amendment




Amendment
(this “Amendment”), dated March 31, 2005, to the Series C Warrant (the
“Warrant”), granted to Satellite Strategic Finance Associates, LLC by Applied
Digital Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) on October 21, 2004 in connection with a
financing transaction. 




Capitalized
terms used but not defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to
them in the Warrant. The parties hereby agree that the Exercise Price shall be
fixed at one cent ($0.01) above the closing price on the date hereof (as
reported by Nasdaq) for one share of the Company’s common stock. All other terms
of the Warrant shall remain unchanged and Sections 11 (notices), 13 (applicable
law), and 14 (amendments) shall apply to this Amendment as if set forth herein
(mutatis mutandis).




APPLIED
DIGITAL SOLUTIONS, INC.








	
      By:
	
      /s/Scott
      R. Silverman

	 	
      Scott
      R. Silverman

	 	
      Chairman
      and Chief Executive Officer













SATELLITE
STRATEGIC FINANCE ASSOCIATES, LLC,

as owner
of 100% of the Warrant








	
      By:
	
      /s/
      Simon Raykher

	 	
      Name: 
      Simon Raykher

	 	
      Title:  
      General Counsel
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with thisQuarterly Report of UnionBanCal Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31,2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Takashi Morimura, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated: May 8, 2007 |   |                       |
|-------------------------|--------|----------------------------|
|                    | By:    | /s/ TAKASHI MORIMURA       |
|                    |   | Takashi Morimura           |
|                    |   | *Chief  Executive Officer* |

 

----
#### YARBROUGH v. STATE.

No. 14665.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 6, 1932.

Joe Bell, of Seymour, for appellant

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for possessing intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

Appellant defended upon the proposition of an alibi. The charge of the court in refer*207ence to this defense told the jury that, if the evidence raised in their minds a reasonable doubt as to the presence of the defendant at the place where the offense was committed, if any such was committed, they should give the defendant the benefit of such doubt and acquit him. This seems to have been excepted to as insufficient. The charge has been approved. McLeroy v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 307, 263 S. W. 309, followed and approved in Mitchell v. State, 103 Tex. Cr. R. 93, 279 S. W. 1112.

The facts sufficiently showed appellant to have been in possession of a quantity of whisky on the occasion laid in the indictment, and need not be set out at length. We have given consideration to the matters set out in appellant’s brief, but believe the record to be here without any showing of error, and the judgment will be affirmed.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 3 - 1069 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 3 -NM - 1 97 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### CF - 2013 - 31 **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s , list latest revision and attach a cop y. 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 sam e 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 co mments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f 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:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 20121.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 25, 1939.

Rehearing Denied March 8, 1939.

Lillian Reynolds, of Austin, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for theft; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The indictment appears regular and properly presented. The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exception. No error has been perceived or pointed out.

The judgment is affirmed.
Unassociated Document


    Exhibit
      10.2

    


    JL
      Montgomery Consulting, LLC 

    October
      30, 2008

    


    EAU
      Technologies, Inc.

    1890
      Cobb
      International Blvd., Suite A

    Kennesaw,
      Georgia 30152

    


    
      	 	
              Re:

            	
              Limited
                Waiver of Section 2.4 of Exhibit A to the Consulting Agreement dated
                May
                1, 2006.

            


    

    


    Gentlemen:

    


    Reference
      is made to the Consulting Agreement dated May 1, 2006, by and between JL
      Montgomery Consulting, LLC (the "Investor") and EAU Technologies, Inc. (the
      "Company").

    


    The
      Board
      of Directors of the Company, or the Compensation Committee thereof, has approved
      the issuance of 100,000
      shares
      of its $0.0001 par value common stock at a sales price of $1.00
      per
      share to Water Science LLC, an affiliate of Peter Ullrich, a director of the
      Company. Investor hereby agrees that the issuance of the shares of stock will
      not cause an adjustment in the Purchase Price pursuant to Section 2.4 of Exhibit
      A to the Consulting Agreement.

    


    
      	 	
              Very
                truly yours,

            
	 	 
	 	
              JL
                MONTGOMERY CONSULTING, LLC

            
	 	 
	 	
              J.
                Leo Montgomery

            
	 	
              Managing
                Member
Medivation, Inc. 2009 Bonus Plan


 Exhibit 10.2 
 2009 Bonus Plan 
 Purpose: 
 The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Compensation Committee”) of Medivation, Inc. (“Medivation”) has established the terms of the 2009 Bonus Plan (the “Plan”) to
compensate the executive officers of the Company for achievement of individual and corporate performance objectives set forth by the Compensation Committee for the fiscal year 2009. 
 Determination of 2009 Cash Bonuses: 
 Target bonuses for the Company’s named executive officers
under the Plan will range from 50% to 65% of such executive’s 2009 base salary. The amount of cash bonuses, if any, for each named executive officer will be based on the named executive officer and the Company meeting the performance objectives
set forth by the Compensation Committee, including the Company’s financial performance and achievement of milestones for research and development activities, as well as other Company performance goals to be determined by the Compensation
Committee. The Board and Compensation Committee reserve the right to modify these goals and criteria at any time or to grant bonuses to the participants even if the performance goals are not met. The target bonuses for the Company’s named
executive officers for the fiscal year 2009 are as follows: 
  

				
	 Executive Officer
	  	Target Bonus
(as a percent of FY
2009 Base
Salary)	 
	 David Hung, M.D.
	  	65	%
	 C. Patrick Machado
	  	50	%
	 Lynn Seely, M.D.
	  	50	%
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 2011

- NM

- 276

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
*OPINION ISSUED OCTOBER 10, 2007*

#### LONNIE A. BAYS VS. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

*40(CC-06-392)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Jason C. Workman, Attorney at Law, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Claimant brought this action for vehicle damage which occurred when his 1998 Chevrolet Cavalier struck a broken section of road while he was traveling eastbound on Plantation’s Creek Road in Putnam County. Plantation’s Creek Road is a road maintained by respondent. The Court is of the opinion to make an award in this claim for the reasons more folly stated below.

The incident giving rise to this claim occurred on December 18, 2006. Plantation’s Creek Road is a two-lane highway at the area of the incident involved in this claim. Claimant testified that he was driving on Plantation’s Creek Road when his vehicle struck a section of road that was broken off which he had not seen. Claimant’s vehicle struck the broken section of road sustaining damage to a tire totaling $58.30.

The position of the respondent is that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition on Plantation’s Creek Road at the site of the claimant’s accident for the date in question. Respondent did not present any witnesses or evidence at the hearing of this matter.

The well-established principle of law in West Virginia is that the State is neither an insurer nor a guarantor of the safety of travelers upon its roads. *Adkins vs. Sims,*130 W.Va. 645; 46 S.E.2d 81 (1947). In order to hold respondent liable for road defects of this type, a claimant must prove that respondent had actual or constructive notice of the defect and a reasonable time to take corrective action. *Chapman vs. Dept. of Highways,*16 Ct. Cl. 103 (1986).

In the instant case, the Court is of the opinion that respondent had at least constructive notice of the broken section of road which claimant’s vehicle struck and that this presented a hazard to the traveling public. The size of the broken section of road leads the Court to conclude that respondent had notice of this hazardous condition and respondent had an adequate amount of time to take corrective action. Thus, the Court finds respondent negligent and claimant may make a recovery for the damage to his vehicle.

In accordance with the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated herein above, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award to the claimant in this claim in the amount of $58.30.

Award of $58.30.