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

The
undersigned, Robert D. Koncerak, the Chief Financial Officer of Touchmark Bancshares, Inc. (the Company), does hereby 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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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 result of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |     |  |                                             
|------------------ |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Date: May 15, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert D. Koncerak                      
|                   |  |     |  | Robert D. Koncerak                          
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                   |  |     |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)



24
[No. 24620.

Department One.

December 19, 1933.]

#### Irene Osterhout, *Respondent,*v. Arthur L. Myers, *as Administrator, Appellant.**1*

*H. E. T. Herman*and *Numm & Nueum,*for appellant.

*John E. Blair*and *E, Ben Johnson,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 27 P. (2d) 1074.

Mitchell,

Mrs. Irene Osterhout and Mrs. Mary .0. Moore, now deceased, were sisters. After the appointment of an administrator of Mrs. Moore’s estate, Mrs. Osterhout presented a duly verified claim against the estate for services performed in nursing and taking care of Mrs. Moore for a while shortly before and again during her last sickness. The claim was rejected. An action on the rejected claim, tried without a jury, resulted in findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant has appealed.

The only contention on the appeal is that the evidence does not justify the findings and judgment.

There was substantial evidence on behalf of the respondent to the effect that Mrs. Moore and her former husband Francis M. Moore had been divorced, *617but were on friendly terms afterwards. She was advanced in years and sick at tbe hospital. Mrs. Oster-hout and Mr. Moore visited her while at the hospital, whereupon arrangements were made for the services for which this suit was brought. Mr. Moore testified that Mrs. Moore wanted to leave the hospital, and that they were talking about it, and he further testified, as follows:

> “A. Yes. Well, so Mary, she says, ‘Well, Heine,’ —that is what she always called me—She says, ‘Heine, will you take me to my sister’s tomorrow?’ She says, ‘I just as soon pay her as anybody else because I would have to have someone with me all the time.’ I said, ‘All right, Mary, I will take you down,’ and I did.”

There was - abundant evidence that thereafter respondent did take care of Mrs. Moore at the former’s home for some weeks, and later, upon Mrs. Moore’s returning to her own apartment, she was taken worse, and was again cared for by the respondent until Mrs. Moore was taken to the hospital, where she died within a few days.

The appellant, administrator of the estate, is a son and heir-at-law of the decedent. He testified that, during the sickness of his mother, Mrs. Osterhout, at a given time and place, while they were discussing Mrs. Moore’s property and the amount of money she had been spending and her manner of spending it, told him that “she [Mrs. Osterhout] would never want any of it, she was taking care of her [Mrs. Moore] of her own free will. ’ ’

Respondent, however, upon being called in rebuttal, categorically denied the testimony of the appellant, concluding her testimony in that respect with a state-that the subject was never discussed in any way between Mr. Myers and herself.

*618As we see it, upon an examination of the whole record, the findings and judgment are sustained by a preponderance of the evidence.

Affirmed.

Beals, C. J., Main, Millard, and Steinert, JJ., concnr.
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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Ameritrans Capital Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2011 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.   Date: October 28, 2011/s/ Michael R. Feinsod
Michael R. Feinsod
Chief Executive Officer
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 clickNsettle.com, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form
10-QSB"), I, Roy Israel, 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;

                  (1) The Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of
                  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
                  (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

                  (2) The information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly
                  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                  and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  May 11, 2004

/s/ Roy Israel
-----------------------------------------------------
Roy Israel - Chairman of the Board, CEO and President


                                       24
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In
connection with this Quarterly Report of Affordable Green Homes International,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Michael P Vahl, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:




1. Such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Affordable Green Homes
International, Inc.






AFFORDABLE
      GREEN HOMES INTERNATIONALDated:
      November 13, 2008
            By:
            /s/ Michael P
      VahlMichael
      P VahlChief
      Executive Officer
Exhibit 13.1  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 Amended Annual Report of Yantai Dahua Holdings, Company Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F/A for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:  1.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: Sept. 14, 2007/s/ TANG YuxiangName:TANG YuxiangTitle:President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: Sept. 14, 2007/s/ QU ShizhiName:QU ShizhiTitle:Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 06, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, August 06, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21A1802. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY .
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion the hereby GRANTED, and jurisdiction is released back to the trial court upon receipt of this order.
EXHIBIT 15.2




March 19, 2012




Securities and Exchange Commission


100 F Street, N.E.


Washington, D.C. 20549





Ladies and Gentlemen:





We were previously the principal accountants for R.V.B. Holdings Ltd. (the “Company”) and, under the date of February 13, 2011, we reported on the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of and for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009. On August 22, 2011, we were dismissed. We have read the Company's statements included under Item 16F of its shell company report on Form 20-F/A dated March 19, 2012, and we agree with such statements.






/s/ Somekh Chaikin




Very truly yours,


Somekh Chaikin




Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)


Member Firm of KPMG International
**EXHIBIT23.1**

 

 

 

 

Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-128700) pertaining to the 1998Stock Option Plan, as amended, of Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc., of ourreport dated December 21, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedule of Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. included in theAnnual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30, 2005.

 

 

 

|   |   |   | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |   |
|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------|--------|

 

 

 

Los Angeles, California

December 21, 2005

 

 

 

 

----
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
  (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.
 August 5, 2010
    /s/  John M. CurtisJohn M. CurtisPresident and Chief Executive Officer A signed original of this written statement has been provided to Vangent and will be retained
by Vangent and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. Exhibit 4.4



Exhibit 4.4


SKECHERS U.S.A., INC.


AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED

1998 STOCK OPTION, DEFERRED STOCK

AND

RESTRICTED STOCK PLAN


Approved on June 1, 2001


The following constitutes the amended provision of the Amended and Restated
1998 Stock Option, Deferred Stock and Restricted Stock Plan (the “Plan”) of
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. (the “Company”). Pursuant to a unanimous written consent
of the Board of Directors dated April 20, 2001, and the approval of the
Stockholders obtained at the annual meeting of the Company’s Stockholders held
on June 1, 2001, the following amendment to the Plan was approved:



1.  Section 3(a) of the Plan shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with
the following:


"(a)  The total number of shares of Stock reserved and available for issuance
under the Plan shall be Eight Million Two Hundred Fifteen Thousand One Hundred
Fifty Four (8,215,154) shares. Such shares shall consist of authorized but
unissued shares. Except in the event that the Stock is a Covered Security, at
no time shall the total number of shares issuable upon exercise of all
outstanding options and the total number of shares provided for under any stock
bonus plan of the issuer exceed the applicable percentage as calculated in
accordance with the conditions and exclusions of Section 260.140.45 of the
California Corporate Securities Rules, or any successor thereto, based on the
shares of the issuer which are outstanding at the time the calculation is made.


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, pursuant to the due authorization and adoption of this
amendment to the Plan by the Board of Directors and Stockholders on the day and
year first above written, the Company has caused this amendment to the Plan to
be duly executed by its duly authorized officer.

	 	 	 	 
	 	SKECHERS U.S.A., INC.,

a Delaware corporation
	 
	 	By:  	/s/  DAVID WEINBERG
        

	 	 	Name:  	David Weinberg
	 	 	Title:	Executive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer
#### LaVariere and another, Appellants, vs. Industrial Commission and others, Respondents.

*February 20*

March *29, 1948.*

For the appellants there were briefs by *B endinger, Hayes & Kluwín,*and oral argument by *John A. Kluwin,*all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent Industrial Commission there was a brief by the *Attorney General*and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general, and oral argument by *Mr. Levitan.*

Fairchild, J.

This case was argued and submitted with the case of *South Side R. & M. Co. v. Industrial Comm., ante,*p. 403, 31 N. W. (2d) 577, and is ruled by the decision therein.

*By the Court.*— Judgment of the circuit court reversed, with directions to enter an order vacating the interlocutory award. Record remanded for further proceedings.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



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

______________________

ATLAS IP, LLC, Appellant

v.

ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC., ST. JUDE MEDICAL S.C., INC., PACESETTER, INC., BIOTRONIK, INC., Appellees

______________________

2017

- 1395

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No s . IPR2014

- 00916, IPR2015

- 00534.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

M ATTHEW T OPIC , Loevy & Loevy, Chicago, IL, argued for appellant.

M ATTHEW A. S MITH , Smith Baluch LLP, Washington, DC, argued for all appellees.

J EFFREY M. O LSON , SOA Legal, Los Angeles, CA, for appellee Biotronik, Inc. Also represented by S AMUEL N.

T IU , Sidley Austin LLP, Los Angeles, CA.______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST

, Chief Judge, C LEVENGER and

L INN

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 13, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1815

WILSONIA E. GORHAM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CATALYTICA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CA-01-104-H-4)

Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: February 23, 2004

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wilsonia E. Gorham, Appellant Pro Se. Zebulon Dyer Anderson, SMITH,

ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHELL & JERNIGAN, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Wilsonia E. Gorham appeals the district court’s order

granting summary judgment in favor of her former employer in her

civil action in which she alleged her employment was terminated in

violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. See Gorham v.

Catalytica Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. CA-01-104-H-4 (E.D.N.C.

May 27, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Christopher McEntee et al., Appellants, v Ace Homes, Inc., Respondent.

[772 NYS2d 633]

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Nolan, Jr., J.), entered May 7, 2003 in Saratoga County, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs cancelled a contract to purchase a modular home from defendant before the manufacturer had commenced work on the home. When defendant refused to return any part of their $12,800 deposit, plaintiffs commenced this action and defendant counterclaimed for damages allegedly sustained as a result of the cancellation. Both parties eventually moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court found a threshold factual issue as to whether plaintiffs’ cancellation was justified by unreasonable delays or was an anticipatory breach and, accordingly, did not reach the other issues asserted by the parties. Plaintiffs’ appeal focuses on the issues not addressed by Supreme Court. We agree with Supreme Court that there is a factual question on the threshold issue of whether there has been any breach and we discern no reason to address the other issues at this juncture.

Crew III, J.P., Carpinello, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 84597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24537]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[FR ID 255163]


Deletion of Item From October 17, 2024 Open Meeting

October 15, 2024.
    The following item has been deleted from the list of items 
scheduled for consideration at the Thursday, October 17, 2024, Open 
Meeting. Item No. 3 was deleted by the Commission on Tuesday, October 
15, 2024. The item was previously listed in the Commission's Sunshine 
Notice on Thursday, October 10, 2024.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Item No.                 Bureau               Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3...........................  Media..........  Title: Restricted
                                                Adjudicatory Matter
                                               Summary: The Commission
                                                will consider a
                                                restricted adjudicatory
                                                matter from the Media
                                                Bureau.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-24537 Filed 10-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION 

•..••-'I\C 

August 13,2010 

City of^^OOfest Columbia 

Bridging Past, Present and Future 

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 

Bobby E. Horton, Mayor 

?OiQ OCT 

OPERATIONS 

A 10: 23 

Ms. Susan Kurland 

Assistant Secretary for Aviation & International Affairs, X-1 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE W88-324 

Washington, DC 20590 

Subject: Small Community Air Service Development Grant Application 

Docket OST-2010-0124 

Columbia Metropolitan Airport - Columbia, SC 

Dear Ms. Kurland: 

As the Mayor of West Columbia, SC and a fre'qiient air traveler, 1 strongly support the air 

service proposal detailed in the Small Community Air Service Development Program 

grant application. Commercial air service at Columbia Metropolitan Airport plays a vital 

role in providing support to education, government, business, and leisure travel to/from 

the area. 

Future community growth of the Columbia cornmunity depends, in part, on the airport's 

ability to meet the needs of existing local businesses as well as companies considering 

Columbia as a location for their operations. The proposal to support improved air service 

will greatly improve our ability to remain competitive in the global marketplace, which is 

the basis for supporting the local econorny and attracting new businesses and residents to 

the area. 

The Columbia Metropolitan Airport has forged strong ties with the business community 

to retain and improve local air service. We appreciate the opportunity to expand that 

partnership to include the U.S. Department of Transportation through the Small 

Community Air Service Development Program. 

City of West Columbia, SC 

P.O. Box 4044 • West Columbia, SC 29171-4044 (803) 939-8612 (phone)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-2283

BRUCE M. MCLAUGHLIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Department

of Veterans Affairs; JAMES D. SHELTON,

Supervisor; TED IRBY, Team Coach; JERRY

IRELAND, HRM; TANYA B. BURTON, Staff Attorney;

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior

District Judge. (1:05-cv-00203-WLO-WWD)

Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: February 28, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce M. McLaughlin, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne P. Klauer, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Bruce M. McLaughlin appeals the district court’s adverse

grant of summary judgment and dismissal of McLaughlin’s action

alleging employment discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and

ancillary claims. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. McLaughlin v. Principi, No. 1:05-cv-00203-WLOWWD (M.D.N.C. Oct. 3, 2006). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED