alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
                          REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) OR
                    RULE 15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
          (AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

        I, Floyd Warkol, as Chief Executive Officer of KSW, Inc., (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted by Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my knowledge:

        (1) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2007 (the "Report"), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 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.

Dated: November 7, 2007


                                                        /s/Floyd Warkol
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Floyd Warkol
                                                        Chief Executive Officer
#### Bartels, Plaintiff and Respondent, vs. Fetterly and another, Appellants: Weber and another, Defendants and Respondents.

For the appellants: *Schoets, Williams & Gandrey,*attorneys, and *Eugene L. McIntyre,*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent Lillian I. Bartels: *Miller, Kuchenberg & Krueger,*attorneys, and /. *A. Krueger,*of counsel, all of Marinette.

For the respondents Weber and another: *Eastman & Rose*of Marinette.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
# C_2005017EN.01000101.xml

| 21.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 17/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 17/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

20 January 2005

(2005/C 17/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2936 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 133,22 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4417 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69330 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0217 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5414 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 81,13 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1790 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5820 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 30,373 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 246,98 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6960 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4311 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1137 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 38 488 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,76 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,680 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7480 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7080 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5934 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,0887 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8439 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1186 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 336,55 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,8845 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2936

JPY

Japanese yen

133,22

DKK

Danish krone

7,4417

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69330

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0217

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5414

ISK

Iceland króna

81,13

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1790

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5820

CZK

Czech koruna

30,373

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

246,98

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6960

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4311

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1137

ROL

Romanian leu

38 488

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,76

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,680

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7480

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7080

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5934

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,0887

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8439

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1186

KRW

South Korean won

1 336,55

ZAR

South African rand

7,8845

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
WILL WILSON 

January 13, 1961 

Mr. Raymond W. Vowel1 

Executive Director 

Board for Texas State Hospitals 

and Special Schools 

Box S, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 

Opinion No. W-981 

Re: Validity of proposed contract between the Board 

for Texas State Hospitals 

and Special Schools and 

the county, whereby the 

county agrees to care for 

mentally ill committed to 

a Texas State Hospital 

under the control and 

management of the Board 

for Texas State Hospitals 

Dear Mr. Vowell: and Special Schools. 

You have requested our opinion on the validity 

of a proposed contract between the Board for Texas State 

Hospitals and Special Schools and the County of El Paso, 

whereby the County of El Paso, 

El Paso County Hospital, 

acting by and through the 

agrees to care and treat persons 

ad'udged to be mentally ill, speclfically agreeing to: 

rr 

1 provide and maintain in-patient hospital facilities, 

2 provide diets and basic nursing care, 

I I 

3 furnish and 

maintain facilities for out-patients, and 4 provide and 

make available psychiatric consulting services of an average of ten visits per week. 

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 3174b, 

Vernon's Civil Statutes, the Board for Texas State Hospitals and Special Schools has control and management of the 

Texas State Hospitals and Special Schools created by the 

Legislature and such "out-patient clinics" as are established by the Board pursuant to the provisions of Article 317413-4, 

Vernon's Civil Statutes. 

The El Paso County Hospital is not a Texas State 

Hospital or Special School created by the Legislature and 
Mr. Raymond W. Vowell, page 2 (Ww-981) 

the proposed contract does not create an out-patient clinic 

in compliance with the provisions of Article 3174b-4, Vernon's Civil Statutes. We fail to find any provision authorizing the Board for Texas State Hospitals and Special Schools 

to contract with the county for the care and treatment of 

mentally ill committed to a Texas State Hospital under the 

management and control of the Board for Texas State Hospitals 

and Special Schools. It is our opinion that the proposed contract attached to your request is invalid. 

SUIYMARY 

The Board for Texas State Hospitals and 

Special Schools does not have a,uthority 

to enter into the proposed contract whereby the county agrees to care for the tnentally ill committed to a Texas State Hospital under the control and management of 

the Board for Texas State Hospitals and 

Special Schools. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

JR:ms/hmc 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMUTTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

Glenn R. Brown 

Cecil Cammack 

Dean Davis 

Gordon Cass 

Fred Werkenthin 

REVIEWED FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: Morgan Nesbitt
# C_2004314EN.01001402.xml

| 18.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/14

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 14 October 2004

in Case T-60/02: Deutsche Verkehrsbank AG v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Competition - Article 81 EC - Price-fixing agreement and ways of charging for currency exchange services - Germany - Procedure in default)

(2004/C 314/36)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-60/02: Deutsche Verkehrsbank AG, established in Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann and by F. Wiemer, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities — application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/25/EC of 11 December 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty — (Case COMP/E — 1/37.919 (ex 37.391) — Bank charges for exchanging euro-zone currencies — Germany) (OJ 2003 L 15, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision 2003/25/EC of 11 December 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/E — 1/37.919 (ex 37.391) — Bank charges for exchanging euro-zone currencies — Germany) in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2003/25/EC of 11 December 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/E — 1/37.919 (ex 37.391) — Bank charges for exchanging euro-zone currencies — Germany) in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.

---
#### Schroeder (William), Appellant, vs. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railway Company, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Martin & Martin*of Green Bay.

For the respondent: *Bender, Trump, McIntyre & Freeman,*attorneys, and’ *Kneeland A. Godfrey*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 8 July 2004

in Case C-127/03: Commission of the European Communities v Trendsoft (Irl) Ltd (1)

(Arbitration clause - Repayment of sums advanced - Interest for late payment - Judgment by default)

(2004/C 217/09)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-127/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Flynn and C. Giolito) v Trendsoft (Irl) Ltd, established in Dublin (Ireland), — application by the Commission of the European Communities under Article 238 EC for repayment of the sum of EUR 21 303 paid by the Commission to the defendant in connection with the performance of contract No EP 23697 together with interest for late payment — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and K. Lenaerts, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 4.12

                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                           OF HARTFORD LIFE CAPITAL IV

         The undersigned, the trustees of Hartford Life Capital IV, desiring to
form a business trust pursuant to Delaware Business Trust Act, 12 Del. C.
Section 3801, et seq., hereby certify as follows:

         (a) The name of the business trust being formed hereby (the "Trust") is
"Hartford Life Capital IV."

         (b) The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust which has
its principal place of business in the State of Delaware is as follows:

                     Wilmington Trust Company
                     Rodney Square North
                     1100 North Market Street
                     Wilmington, Delaware 19890-0001
                     Attn: Corporate Trust Administration

         (c) This Certificate of Trust may be executed in one or more
counterparts, all of which together shall constitute one and the same
instrument.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being all of the initial trustees
of the Trust, have executed this Certificate of Trust.

                             WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY,
                             as Trustee
                             By:    /s/ Patricia A. Evans
                                    ---------------------
                                    Name: Patricia A. Evans
                                    Title:  Senior Financial Services Officer

                                    /s/ David T. Foy
                                    ----------------
                                    Name: David T. Foy, as Trustee
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document
  



 
 

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT    
  


W. SCOTT HARKONEN ("EXECUTIVE"):


    Effective
March 6, 2001, INTERMUNE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (the "Company") has amended, as follows, that certain Employment
Agreement between Executive and the Company, which became effective as of October 15, 1998, as amended on June 8, 2000 (the "Agreement"): 



	1.
	Section 2.1—First Sentence: In lieu of "Two Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($275,000.00)," the
"annual base salary" shall be "Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000), effective as of January 1, 2001. Any upward adjustments to Executive's annual base salary may be effected by the
approval of the Company's Compensation Committee, with ratification by the Company's Board of Directors, without necessity of amending this Agreement."



	2.
	Section 2.1—Add the following sentence to the end of the section: 





"Executive
shall be paid a bonus of his Base Compensation, based upon achievement of the Company's prior calendar year's corporate milestones." 



	3.
	Section 4—Delete the last sentence that reads: 





"Notwithstanding
the foregoing, the Company agrees that Executive may devote an average of 20% of each work week to furnish consulting services to Connetics Corporation; provided, that Executive's
Base Compensation shall be reduced by 20% during such period as he performs such consulting services." 



	4.
	Section 8.3—In the first sentence, in lieu of the "Chief Executive Officer," the signatories shall be "Executive"
and "Senior Vice President of Legal Affairs."



	5.
	Section 8.10—Add the following Section 8.10: 





"This
Agreement, as amended on March 6, 2001, and that certain Common Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of April 27, as amended February 23, 2000 (the "Stock Purchase
Agreement"), constitute the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersede and merge all prior agreements or understandings, whether written or oral. With
respect to interpretation and construction of provisions that may be inconsistent between this Agreement and the Stock Purchase Agreement, the provisions of the Stock Purchase Agreement shall
control." 



	6.
	Except
as specifically amended and modified herein, the Agreement shall continue in force and effect pursuant to its terms. 





Dated
the 6th day of March 2001. 




	 
	 	 
	 	 

	 	 	INTERMUNE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 
	 	 	By:	 	/s/ STEPHEN N. ROSENFIELD   
STEPHEN N. ROSENFIELD

Senior Vice President of Legal Affairs




1





 
 
 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT    
  


    The undersigned acknowledges receipt of the foregoing amendment and understands that the rights and liabilities with respect to the Employment Agreement
described therein are set forth in the Employment Agreement. 




Dated
the 6th day of March 2001. 




	 
	 	 
	 	 

	 	 	 	 	/s/ W. SCOTT HARKONEN   
W. SCOTT HARKONEN




2









QuickLinks


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
*June 4, 1935.*

#### Siefert (Gladys), Plaintiff and Respondent, vs. Sires, Defendant and Appellant: Western Casualty & Surety Company and another, Defendants: Gunville, Defendant and Respondent.

For the appellant: *Bender, Trump & McIntyre,*attorneys, and *David G. Owen, Jr.,*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent (plaintiff) : *Bendinger & Hayes,*attorneys, and *John H. Schlosser*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent (defendant Ervie Gunville) : *Hayes & Hayes,*attorneys, and *William A. Hayes*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
Jonathan B. Hill

T: +1 202 776 2725

jhill@cooley.com

1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 700, WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2400 T: (202) 842-7800 F: (202) 842-7899 WWW.COOLEY.COM

January 28, 2014

Esta Rosenberg, Chief

U.S. Air Carrier Division

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Docket DOT-OST-2014-0009

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

JetBlue Airways Corporation (“JetBlue”) has completed its polling of carriers served with its

application for Blanket Statement of Authorization. JetBlue has received a “no objection” from all 

carriers who were served with the application and are still operating.1

 

Sincerely,

Jonathan B. Hill

Counsel for JetBlue Airways Corporation

cc: Service List

 1 JetBlue inadvertently served the application on Evergreen International Airlines (“Evergreen”). 

Evergreen and its relevant affiliated entities filed voluntary petitions for relief under chapter 7 of the 

Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on December 31, 

2013, and appear to have ceased operations.
Helping People Help the Land

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. 

Conservation Practice Standard Overview May 2016 

Sediment Basin (Code 350) 

A sediment basin is a basin constructed with an 

engineered outlet, formed by constructing an 

embankment, excavating a dugout, or a combination of 

both. 

Practice Information 

Sediment basins capture and detain sediment-laden runoff

or other debris for a sufficient length of time to allow it to 

settle out in the basin.

Sediment basins preserve the capacity of reservoirs, culverts, ditches, canals, diversions, waterways, and 

streams; prevent excessive down-slope deposition; trap sediment originating from construction sites; and 

reduce or abate damage to natural resources from pollution or deposition of sediment.

Many factors influence the efficiency of sediment removal in a basin. These include the detention time of 

runoff, the type of dewatering device, the presence of a permanent pool in the basin, a decrease in 

turbulence in the basin, and soil particle size.

Operation and maintenance requirements will include periodic inspections with prompt repair or 

replacement of damaged components, periodic removal of sediment, and periodic mowing of vegetation.

Common Associated Practices 

Sediment Basin (Code 350) may be a component practice of a required storm water management plan 

and/or erosion and sediment control plan. Conservation practices commonly applied with Sediment Basin 

(Code 350) include Critical Area Planting (Code 342), Mulching (Code 484), and Structure for Water 

Control (Code 587).

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.

Natural Resources Conservation Service
May 2019

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Conservation Practice Overview

Pest Management Conservation System (Code

595)

A Pest Management Conservation System (PMCS) is a

system that combines an Integrated Pest Management

(IPM) decision making process with natural resource

conservation to address pest and environmental impacts.

Practice Information

PMCS uses conservation related prevention, avoidance,

monitoring and suppression (PAMS) techniques to address pest and natural resource concerns. It

employs strategies that keep pest populations below economically damaging or historic levels. A

PMCS can mitigate for suppression techniques that impact natural resources and can minimize pest

resistance.

PMCS is crop, soil and/or land use specific and adheres to applicable elements and guidelines

accepted by the local land grant university or extension.

Common Associated Practices

A Pest Management Conservation System (595) is commonly associated with conservation practices

such as Conservation Crop Rotation (328), Nutrient Management (590), Conservation Cover (327)

and Cover Crop (340).

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
#### Koehler, Respondent, vs. Roth and another, Appellants.

For the appellants: *Bendinger, Hayes, Kluwin & Schlosser*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Otjen & Otjen*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
Argued and submitted June 18,

jurisdiction affirmed; remanded for entry of corrected judgment July 14, 1993

#### In the Matter of Jason Grimm, a Child. STATE ex rel JUVENILE DEPARTMENT OF MULTNOMAH COUNTY, *Respondent, v.*Jason GRIMM, *Appellant.*

(74374A; CA A77686)

856 P2d 320

Ellen K. Jones, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Julie H. McFarlane, Portland.

Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and John Payne, Certified Law Student, Salem.

Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and Richardson, Chief Judge, and Leeson, Judge.

PER CURIAM

*668PER CURIAM

In this delinquency proceeding, we affirm the juvenile court’s judgment that child is within the jurisdiction of that court by virtue of acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of arson. ORS 164.325(1). In its dispositional order, the court stated that child “has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge of Arson I.” We agree with child that the court’s judgment is not properly worded. It should not have said that child had been ‘ ‘proved guilty. ’ ’ Rather, it should have found child within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction by virtue of conduct that would constitute the crime of arson if committed by an adult. ORS 419.476(l)(a). We remand the case to the trial court for entry of a judgment consistent with ORS 419.476(1)(a). *State ex rel Juv.Dept. v. Cruz,*111 Or App 216, 826 P2d 30 (1992).

Jurisdiction affirmed; remanded for entry of corrected judgment.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1782 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1782

 To amend title 49, United States Code, to exempt certain flights from 
   increased aviation security service fees, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2017

   Ms. Gabbard (for herself, Ms. Hanabusa, and Mr. Young of Alaska) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 49, United States Code, to exempt certain flights from 
   increased aviation security service fees, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Passenger Fee Restructuring 
Exemptions Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. EXCEPTIONS TO RESTRUCTURING OF PASSENGER FEE.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 44940 of title 49, 
United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Fees imposed'' and 
        inserting ``Except as provided by paragraph (2), fees 
        imposed'';
            (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(2) Exceptions.--Fees imposed under subsection (a)(1) may 
        not exceed $2.50 per enplanement, and the total amount of such 
        fees may not exceed $5.00 per one-way trip, for passengers--
                    ``(A) boarding to an eligible place under 
                subchapter II of chapter 417 for which essential air 
                service compensation is paid under such subchapter; or
                    ``(B) on flights, including flight segments, 
                between two or more points in Hawaii or two or more 
                points in Alaska.''.
    (b) Implementation of Fee Exceptions.--The Secretary of Homeland 
Security shall implement the fee exceptions under the amendments made 
by subsection (a)--
            (1) beginning on the date that is 30 days after the date of 
        the enactment of this Act; and
            (2) through the publication of notice of the fee exceptions 
        in the Federal Register, notwithstanding section 9701 of title 
        31, United States Code, and the procedural requirements of 
        section 553 of title 5, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
HomeNRC LibraryFOIA & Privacy ActClosed Requests

# Closed Appeal & FOIA/PA Cases by Subject - FY 1998

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021