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 the
Annual Report of AmerInst Insurance Group, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stuart Grayston,
President and Principal 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 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/ STUART GRAYSTON                    
|Stuart Grayston                        
|President (Principal Executive Officer)
|March 29, 2010
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 10.188

                 Updated Schedule to Form of Change in Control
                Agreement Filed as Exhibit 99.2 of the Company's
              Current Report on Form 8-K dated March 29, 1999 Filed
                    Pursuant to Instruction 2 to Item 601(a)
                               of Regulation S-K

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         SEVERANCE PAYMENT
EXECUTIVE                 POSITION          TIME PERIOD             DATE
<S>                   <C>                <C>                       <C>
David K. Barber       Senior Vice             2 years              9/23/98
                      President --
                      Project
                      Management

Robin L. Barber       Vice President          2 years              11/20/98
                      and Senior
                      Counsel

Russell A. DiGilio    Senior Vice             2 years              9/23/98
                      President --
                      Outlook Pointe
                      Division

Alfred I. Lovitz*     Vice President-         1 year               6/24/98
                      Missouri
                      Division
</TABLE>

* Mr. Lovitz' change in control agreement also provides for his employment; the
other Executives were already employed at the time they entered into their
respective agreements. In addition, Mr. Lovitz is not subject to the geographic
reassignment provision described in Section 2(G).
##### 



Exhibit 23.1

Independent Auditors Consent

The Board of Directors
     AMERIGROUP Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(No. 333-37410) on post effective amendment No. 1 to Form S-1 and in the
registration statement (No. 333-109134) on Form S-8 of AMERIGROUP Corporation
of our reports dated February 11, 2004, with respect to the consolidated
balance sheets of AMERIGROUP Corporation as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and
the related consolidated income statements and statements of stockholders
equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2003, and the related financial statement schedule, which reports
appear in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of AMERIGROUP
Corporation.

Our report on the financial statements of AMERIGROUP Corporation and
subsidiaries refers to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 141, Business Combinations, and No. 142, Goodwill and Other
Intangible Assets.

Norfolk, Virginia
March 8, 2004
/s/ KPMG LLP
Exhibit 99.2

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 Annual Report of Advanstar, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, David W. Montgomery, 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 the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Report, and as of the end of the period covered by the Report:



| |  | By: | /s/DAVID W. MONTGOMERYDavid W. Montgomery
Chief Financial Officer
| |  | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------

March
28, 2003

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.

This
certification is being submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
This certification shall not to be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), or otherwise subject to the liability of that
section. This certification does not constitute a part of Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K accompanying this certification and to which it is an exhibit.

---

QuickLinks
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 8 , 2022

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 00718

- CV

SUSAN LESLIE SACCOME N, REBECCA BIERCE, J EFFREY WAYNE ENGLEDOW, LISA HUDOC K, JAIME LAIR, PAULA SCOTT, KEITH SUAREZ, AND VALERIE LYNN WILLIAMS , Appell ant s
V. LINA HIDALGO, HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE, ET AL , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2022

- 46699

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This appeal is from a n order signed September 28, 2022 . The ap p e al was to the Texas Supr eme Court but the Harris County District Clerk subsequently, and erroneously, assigned this cause to this court. On October 26
, 2022 , the Harris County District Clerk advised this court of its error. Because this cause was

erroneo u s l y assigned to this court, we dismiss the appeal

.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot and Zimmerer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON PAGES 3 AND 4
OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000925548
<NAME> TOWER AUTOMOTIVE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,727
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  443,144
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    127,790
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               670,318
<PP&E>                                       1,417,480
<DEPRECIATION>                                 262,612
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,818,699
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          469,868
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           472
<OTHER-SE>                                     766,497
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,818,699
<SALES>                                        685,364
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               685,364
<CGS>                                          573,642
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  573,642
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                39,755
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,197
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 58,770
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,508
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             35,262
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    37,123
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.65


</TABLE>
MEMORANDUM

June 21, 2011 TO: Air Docket FROM: Nancy

Ketcham - Colwill, CI SD/OTAQ/OAR, EPA SUBJECT: Meeting Summaries On January

28, February

4 and March 18, 2011, EPA staff from the Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality met with staff from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to discuss issues concerning EPA’s proposed p ump label for E15 and request for comment on labeling other ethanol blends . FTC staff were from the Bureau of Co nsumer Protection and involved in the development of FTC’s proposed labels for gasoline ethanol blends and consumer labeling experts. EPA and FTC staff discussed design of labels that would effectivel y inform consumers about the appropriate and prohibited uses of ethanol blends in light of EPA’s partial waiver decisions and proposed misfueling mitigation rule . EPA staff provided FTC staff with a summary of the suggestions made b y commenters in response to the labeling portions of EPA’s proposed rule. FTC staff provided advice about label design based on their experience with consumer labeling . EPA and FTC s taff also discussed coordination of EPA and possible future FTC labels for ethanol blends. FTC staff advice is described in the preamble to the final E15 misfueling mitigation rule. EPA staff provided FTC staff with an opportunity to review a draft of the relevant sections of the preambl e so that they

could ensure that their advice was accuratel y reflected. EPA accepted FTC staff comments on the preamble language describing their advice.
JULIE R. BEDOGNE

, as personal

representative of the estate of VINCENT R. BEDOGNE,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: June 30, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU); Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; Table Injury ; Influenza ( Flu ) ; Guillain

Barré syndrome (“GBS”).

Scott William Rooney, Nemes, Rooney, P.C., Farmington Hills, MI , for Petitioner.

Steven Santayana , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Julie R. Bedogne (“Petitioner”), as personal representative of the estate of Vincent R. Bedogne (“Mr. Bedogne”) has pursued thi s petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petition filed January 26, 2021 (ECF No. 1) (filed by Mr. Bedogne ); Notice (EF No. 11) (reflecting Mr. Bedogne’s subsequent death); Order (ECF No. 20) (amending the case caption); Amended Petition (ECF No. 39).

Petitioner allege d that as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to Mr. Bedogne on Septembe r 26, 2019, Mr. Bedogne suffered from Guillain

- Barré syndrome (“GBS”). Amended Petition at 2

- 4. Petitioner further allege d that Mr. Bedogne continued

1 Because this unpublished R uling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

- Government Act

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Feder al Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the R uling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that

the identified material f its within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ). CORRECTED



# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 21 -0803V
UNPUBLISHED2

to suffer from GBS symptoms at the time of his passing on February 1, 2021, and that said symptoms were a factor in his cause of death. Id . at 3. T he case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On June 30, 2022

, Respondent filed a combined Rule 4(c) R eport and Proffer in

which he concede s that Petitioner ’ s claim meets the Table criteria for GBS

. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer at 8 (citing 42 C.F. R. § 100 .3( a), (c))

. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner has satisfied the Act’s other statutory and jurisdictional requirements

. Id

.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

Petitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master
EXHIBIT 11


<PAGE>






                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



                                                       Three Months Ended
                                                            June 30,
                                                            --------
                                                        1998         1999
                                                        ----         ----
Computation Basic Earnings Per Share:
Weighted average common shares outstanding:
      Average share issued                           515,125      515,125
      Less: Average unallocated ESOP shares          (26,787)     (22,666)
      Less: Unearned MSBP shares                      (7,122)      (3,829)
      Less: Average Treasury shares                  (98,495)    (112,868)
                                                   ---------     --------

Weighted average shares outstanding                  382,721      375,762
                                                   =========     ========

Computation Diluted Earnings Per Share:
Weighted average shares
   outstanding (per above basic EPS)                 382,721      375,762
      Plus: dilutive effect of MSBP shares             1,288          781
      Plus: dilutive effect of  Stock options         11,929       13,470
                                                   ---------     --------

Diluted weighted average shares outstanding          395,938      390,013
                                                   =========     ========

Net earnings                                       $ 107,810    $  85,411
                                                   =========    =========

Earnings per shares:
Basic                                              $    0.28    $    0.23
                                                   =========    =========

Diluted                                            $    0.27    $    0.22
                                                   =========    =========


Beginning  with the  completed  stock  offering  date of October 11,  1994,  the
Company  accounts for the 41,210 shares acquired by the Employee Stock Ownership
Plan ("ESOP") in accordance  with Statement of Position 93.6. In accordance with
this statement, shares controlled by the ESOP are not considered in the weighted
average shares outstanding until the shares are committed for allocation.
<PAGE>



                                                                  EXHIBIT (31)-2


                              THE BANC CORPORATION

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of The Banc
Corporation (the "Company") certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Company for the year ended December 31, 2003, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and the information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  March 15, 2004                         /s/ James A. Taylor
                                      ----------------------------------------
                                                 James A. Taylor
                                             Chief Executive Officer



         This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.


<PAGE>




                              THE BANC CORPORATION

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of The Banc
Corporation (the "Company") certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Company for the year ended December 31, 2003, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and the information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  March 15, 2004                         /s/ David R. Carter
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                                 David R. Carter
                                             Chief Financial Officer



         This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
*January 13, 1942.*

#### Richtman, Plaintiff and Respondent, American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, Intervened Plaintiff and Respondent, vs. Honkamp and another, Appellants.

For the appellants: *Benton, Bosser, Becker & Parnell*of Appleton.

For the plaintiff and respondent: *Gustav J. Keller*of Appleton.

For the intervened plaintiff and respondent: *Charles H. Gorman*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
**Exhibit 21.1****SUBSIDIARIES LIST**     **NAME OF CORPORATION** **JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION** **OPERATING NAMES**Waste Services of Arizona, Inc. Delaware, United States Arizona Waste Services     Cactus Waste Systems, LLC Arizona, United States n/a     Omni Waste of Osceola County LLC Ohio, United States JED Landfill     Jacksonville Florida Landfill, Inc. Delaware, United States n/a     Jones Road Landfill and Recycling Ltd. Florida, United States n/a     Waste Services of Florida Inc. Delaware, United States Florida Recycling Services     Fort Bend Regional Landfill LP Texas, United States n/a     Ruffino Hills Transfer Station LP Texas, United States n/a     WSI Waste Services of Texas, LP Texas, United States n/a     Waste Services (CA) Inc. Ontario, Canada A & B Portables,Capital Environmental Resource,Frith Regional Waste Systems,John’s Cartage Waste Management,LaRue Waste & Recycling,Maverick Waste Systems,McGill Environmental Services,Muskoka Containerized Services
#### Palmer & Co. v. Merrill et al.

1. Mechanic's Lien: answer by alle&ed lien-holdeh: appeal. In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, an alleged junior lien-holder (appellant herein) answered by only denying knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief, (Code, § 2665, par. 2,) and the principal defendant made default, and there was judgment and decree for plaintiff. *Held*that, as the effect of appellant’s answer was to deny that it claimed a lien on the property, as was alleged in the petition, and as it did not show in its answer that it had any claim or lien, an appeal by it alone presented nothing for the determination of this court.

*Appeal from the Superior Goibrt of Greston.*

Thursday, December 9.

ActioN to enforce a mechanic’s lien. There was á decree for plaintiffs. The defendant the Loan & Trust Company alone appeals.

*Higlee <&*Hanna, for appellant.

*Gregory <& Wieks,*for appellees.

Bece, J.

I. The petition alleges that plaintiffs furnished materials used by defendant Merrill in building certain houses upon lots described in the petition, which it is alleged were owned by him. The other allegations of the petition sufficiently show that plaintiffs are entitled to the relief claimed by them against Merrill. It is also alleged that the other defendant, the Crestón Loan *&*Trust Company, have *228or claim some lien on tlie property. We find in the abstract no answer by Merrill, and pi’esame lie made default. The Loan & Trust Company made no other answer than to aver that of the truth of the allegations of plaintiffs’ petition it had no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief. It alone appeals, and insists that the evidence fails to establish plaintiffs’ claim against Merrill for the materials, his ownership of the property, and other facts entitling them to recovery.

II. The Crestón Loan & Trust Company does not, in its answer’, set up any claim or lien to the property, or show any other facts that authorize it to resist plaintiffs’ demand for a judgment. Indeed, its interest in the jiroperty is not shown in any pleadings other than plaintiffs’ petition. All of the allegations of the petition are denied. Its answer, which alleges want of knowledge and information of the facts pleaded in the petition, has the effect of a general denial thereof. Code, § 2655, par. 2. It does not show by the pleadings that it has any interest in the property. In fact, it denies that it has. It cannot, therefore, urge in this court that plaintiff failed to support its claim of alien by proper proof. Defendant Merrill does not complain of the judgment, not having appealed. We are authorized to presume that he did not answer. As plaintiff denies allegations of the petition to the effect that it sets up a claim to the property, and does not, in its answer, show that it holds any claim thereto, and, as Merrill does not appeal, there is nothing before us for determination.

The various papers presenting amendments to the abstract, and a motion to strike amendments, do not demand consideration.

The decree of the court below is

AFFIRMED.
#### Will of Rivers : Rivers, Appellant, vs. Rivers, Respondent.

For the appellant: *William B. Webster*of Hudson, attorney, and *L. S. Doolittle*of River Falls of counsel.

For the respondent: *William F. Morris-oí*West De Pere, and *C. F. Morris*of Washburn.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.