alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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 Annual Report on Form 20-F ofPerusahaan Perseroan (Persero) P.T. TelekomunikasiIndonesia Tbk. (the “Company”) for the yearly periodended December 31, 2005 as filed with the SecuritiesExchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Arwin Rasyid, President Director ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to the best of my knowledge:          (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of    1934; 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/ Arwin Rasyid       Name: Arwin Rasyid     Title: President DirectorDate: June 23, 2006
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Nicholas R. Schacht, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the annual report of Learning Tree International, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended September 28, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of the operations of Learning Tree International, Inc.



|                        |  |  |  |        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: December 11, 2007 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ NICHOLAS R. SCHACHT
|                        |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Nicholas R. Schacht    
|                        |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer

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.
#### George W. Higgins v. Illinois T. & S. Bk., Receiver, et al.

1. Former Decision—Eolloioed.—This case is controlled by the case of Bogan et al. v. The Illinois Trust and Savings Bank, 93 Ill. App. 39, and the court adopts the same conclusion as in that case.

Bill to Enforce the Liability of Stockholders.—Error to the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Elbridge Hanecy, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1900.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed June 28, 1901.

Paddock & Billings, attorneys for plaintiff in error.

Walker & Payne, Edwin Burritt Smith and David Quigg, attorneys for defendants in error; E. R. Bliss, of counsel.

Opinion per Curiam.

It is agreed by opposing counsel that this ease covers the same facts in substance and the same legal questions as were involved in the case of Bogan et al. v. the same appellees, 93 Ill. App. 39. This case is therefore controlled by that one, and we adopt the same conclusion as there, and affirm the decree. Affirmed.
#### Elderkin v. Winne et al.

1. PARTNERSHIP. — Where, by an article of agreement between two persons for carrying on a trade or business of a particular nature, and in the same instrument a third party joins with *one*of the other parties to carry on another trade or business for *their*separate account, the relation of partners is not created between the *three,*so as to enable a person dealing with either branch of the concern to maintain an action against the whole.

2. Same. — The mere joining in the same instrument of two separate co-partnerships, where *all*are hot interested in both, cannot create any greater liability, on constitute-any other relation, than would result if the instruments creating the two co-partnerships had been separate and distinct, the one from the other.

(1 *Ghand.*27.)

ERROR to tbe District Court for *Walioorth*County.

This action was commenced before a justice of Walworth county, and the plaintiffs, *Winne <&*Brown, there declared as partners. The defendant pleaded in abatement the non-joinder of a third person, one Margrat, as plaintiff. Upon that issue the justice non-suited the plaintiffs.

*96The case was carried to the late district court by *certiorari,*and the district court reversed the judgment. Upon such reversal a writ of error was brought to this court.

The parties submitted the case without argument.

Larrabee, J.

This cause was submitted without argument. The defendants declared before the justice as partners ; and this being put in issue, was decided against them, and judgment of nonsuit rendered. This was reversed upon *certiorari*by the district court.

The proof consisted of a written agreement to carry on the blacksmith business ; one furnishing capital and the other labor ; the profits and expenses to be divided equally.

In the same article was an agreement between *Winne*and one Margrat, to carry on the business of painting; and it was contended that this constituted a partnership between them all; and upon this ground judgment was rendered against the plaintiff below. In tiffs the justice was clearly wrong ; as it is difficult to imagine upon what principle of law, or by what process of reasoning, *Brown*and Margrat were considered bound by the agreement as partners. The contract of *Winne*with each, was a separate and independent one for the carrying on of separate and independent branches of trade. The ratio of division of profits was different in each, and in no manner was *Brown*and Margrat to participate in the profits of each other’s labor, or furnish each other with capital.

The district court very properly reversed the judgment, and the judgment of that court must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.
Adams, Kevin (OST) 

From: Mike Worthington [bogeybrol ©yahoo.com] 

Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 10:27 AM 

To: EAS (OST) 

Subject: Ft Dodge airport 

From the selections being presented to replace Delta Airline it looks like Great Lakes Airlines is the best option. 

Mike Worthington 

HuniboMt, lA 

0 -^ ^ 

*^*v;v.,-- . • -^ 

mS •-, • "trT i»_ • 
Adams. Kevin (OST) 

From: Fort Dodge - Marl<eting Coordinator [1192marl<eting@hy-vee.com] 

Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 5:51 PM 

To: EAS (OST) 

Subject: Fort Dodge air service 

Fort Dodge is an agricultural, industrial, retail, educational and medical hub for northwest Iowa. Our Fort Dodge 

Regional Airport serves a large geographical area and must continue to do so. 

I work in the retail sector and our continued growth will rely on being a community that offers a variety of strong 

fundamental resources including efficient transportation for commercial and private air service. 

I strongly support the Federal Essential Air Service Program, designed to ensure that rural areas have a link to the 

national transportation system. 

Ann Halbur 

Marketing & Events Coordinator 

Hy-Vee Food Store 

115 S 29'*^ Street 

Fort Dodge, lA 50501 

515-573-4105 phone 

1192marketing@hv-vee.com 

Malqng Lives 'Easier, Heaiifiier &9{appier 

^ -
Adams, Kevin (OST) 

From: bretcharon [car_doctor54@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 9:33 PM 

To: EAS (OST) 

Cc: car_doctor54@yahoo.com 

Subject: Ft Dodge air service 

I am sending this in response to Delta's leaving the Ft Dodge, la airport. We fly out of Ft Dodge 2-3 times a 

year, and hope that the airline you pick to replace Delta has direct service to Minneapolis like before. Also the 

planes and flight times are important. At least 2 flights a day and at least one in the morning, along with decent 

sized planes. I think one of the airlines was only going to use small Cessnas if i'm not mistaken. It has been so 

convenient to fly from Ft Dodge, I hope that doesn't change. The article I read didn't mention how the tickets 

would compare with previous flights, because we usually fly Delta from FD to Phoenix through Miimeapolis. 

We used to fly out of Des Moines because of the-price from FD. I was surprised when Delta wanted to leave 

because when we fly from FD, I can't remember a time recently the plane wasn't almost full! Thanks for your 

consideration. Bret Charon, Humboldt, la 

4 « « *t. -
Adams, Kevin (OST) 

From: 5155709484@VTEXT.COM 

Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 5:06 PM 

To: EAS (OST) 

Subject: Fort Dodge air service is 

Fort Dodge air service is best supported by Great Lakes and their proposed 3 flights a day 

ir-^'-^
#### Dr. William Read *vs.*Prince and wife.

CASE XLIII.

a. b. p. 144.

Ne gxeat suspended, TMr!bTMT pre°

On motion of Mr. Drayton, it is ordered, that the operation of the writ of ne exeat, as far as it relates to the defendant C. Prince personally, be suspended, on his executing in the presence of, and leaving with the master of this court, a power of attorney to some citizen of this state resident in the city, to join with his wife in making titles to the house and lot mentioned iii the bill of complaint, and to abide any further order of this court: And that in the mean time all the estate, real and personal, of the deceased C. Lempriere, in the hands of the admi» iiistratix, be impounded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001105841
<NAME>                        ClickSoftware Technologies Ltd.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                              JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                       1
<CASH>                                                            9,332
<SECURITIES>                                                     15,518
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     6,390
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 32,363
<PP&E>                                                            5,620
<DEPRECIATION>                                                  (2,426)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   36,081
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             3,374
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                            100
<OTHER-SE>                                                       31,149
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     36,081
<SALES>                                                          12,608
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 12,608
<CGS>                                                             4,167
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     4,167
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 16,710
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 (7,941)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             (7,941)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    (7,941)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                      (0.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    (0.37)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.02

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

 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 Malahat Energy Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned, in the capacities 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; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
 material respects, the financial condition and results of operation
 of the Company.

Dated June 19, 2003

/s/ Bruce Ramsay
-------------

Bruce Ramsay
Chief Financial Officer
ex10_02.htm





Exhibit 10.02


 



Fourth Amendment


to the


Xcel Energy Senior Executive Severance and Change-In-Control Policy







THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT is made this 20th day of February, 2013, by Xcel Energy Inc. (the “Principal Sponsor”).







WITNESSETH:







WHEREAS, the Principal Sponsor maintains the Xcel Energy Senior Executive Severance and Change-In-Control Policy (the “Policy”), and







WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Principal Sponsor (the “Board”) has reserved the right to make amendments to the Policy, and







WHEREAS, the governance, Compensation and Nominating Committee of the Board of Directors of the Principal Sponsor (the “Committee”) has reserved the right to appoint or remove Participants under the Policy, and







WHEREAS, the Committee wishes to amend the Policy in certain respects effective February 20, 2013, to add a Participant and to remove Participants who have retired or otherwise terminated employment with the Company.







NOW, THEREFORE, the Board hereby amends the Policy as follows:







1.           The following new Schedule I shall replace the current Schedule I as it appears therein:







Schedule I - Participants



	
Name

	
Tier

	
Severance Multiple

	
Change-in-Control Multiple


	
Fowke III, Benjamin G.S.

	
1

	
1

	
3


	
Hart, Cathy J.

	
1

	
1

	
3


	
Larson, Kent T.

	
1

	
1

	
3


	
Madden, Teresa S.

	
1

	
1

	
3


	
McDaniel Jr., Marvin E.

	
1

	
1

	
3


	
O’Connor, Timothy J.

	
1

	
1

	
3


	
Sparby, David M.

	
1

	
1

	
3


	
Wilensky, Scott M.

	
1

	
1

	
3


	
Palmer, Robert Roy

	
2

	
1

	
2


	
Tyson II, George E.

	
2

	
1

	
2













	
  

	
2.

	
Savings Clause. Except as hereinabove set forth, the Xcel Energy Senior Executive Severance and Change-In-Control Policy shall continue in full force and effect.













IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Xcel Energy Inc. has caused this instrument to be enacted by its duly authorized officer as of the date set forth to be effective February 20, 2013.










	  	
XCEL ENERGY INC.


	  	  
	  	
/s/ Benjamin G.S. Fowke III


	  	  
	  	
By: Benjamin G.S. Fowke III


	  	  
	  	
Its: Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
#### John L. Westmoreland and Wife, et al., *vs.*Wm. West, Administrator of James West.

Where a guardian, who was the grandfather of his wards, made, in his annual returns, no charge against his wards, for the rearing and keeping of slaves, his representative was not permitted, after his death, to make such a charge.

BEFORE DARGAN, CH„ AT GREENVILLE, JULY SITTINGS, 1857.

A sufficient statement of tbis case is contained in tbe opinion delivered in tbe Court of Appeals.

Mford, for appellant.

*Perry,*contra.

Tbe opinion of tbe Court was delivered by

Wardlaw, Ch.

Tbe female plaintiffs were tbe wards of • tbeir grandfather, James West, in bis lifetime, and they seek by tbis bill, amongst other things, an account of bis guardianship from bis representative. In bis returns as guardian, deliberately made after consultation with tbe Commissioner, be included no charge against bis wards for tbe rearing and maintenance of a negro woman Fanny and her children, which be bad purchased with tbe funds of bis wards, and no charge against himself for tbe hire of these slaves, while be did include charges against tbe wards for tbeir own board at bis bouse. The Chancellor on circuit ruled that tbe estate of tbe guardian was not entitled to compensation for keeping tbe slaves nor liable for tbeir hire, and confirmed tbe *419amended report of tbe Commissioner made in conformity to tbis ruling. Tbe defendant appeals because tbe decree refused any allowance for tbe rearing and keeping of tbe slaves.

We approve tbe decree of tbe Chancellor. Tbe case .is witbin tbe principle of *Booth*vs. Sineath, 2 Strob. Eq. 31. There a step-fatber who was guardian of a female ward living with him was refused all allowance for her maintenance and education, mainly on tbe ground that be had made no such charge in bis returns to tbe Commissioner; and although be affirmed in bis answer that be always intended to charge for her maintenance, and omitted tbe items in bis return on tbe advice of tbe Commissioner that it was unnecessary to include them until a final settlement. Tbe present case is stronger, for not only did tbe guardian omit in bis returns to make charge against bis orphan grand-daughters for rearing tbe slaves, but there is no allegation that be was misled into tbe omission, and bis attention must have been directed to tbe matter, as be was careful to set down analogous charges for rearing tbe wards themselves. Tbe decree properly pursues an intimation in tbe former decree of tbe Chancellor who originally beard tbe cause, that from tbe omission of tbe guardian to charge tbe funds of bis wards, with tbe price of tbe slaves it might have been inferred that tbe grandfather intended an advancement to bis wards, if plaintiffs bad not avowed their willingness to pay tbe purchase money.

Many witnesses were examined on tbe issue whether keeping these slaves was burdensome or profitable, and their testimony was so widely variant and conflicting as almost to baffle any conclusion.

It is ordered and decreed that tbe appeal be dismissed and tbe decree be affirmed.

Johnston, Dunkin and Dargan, CC., concurred.

*Appeal dismissed.*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 21, 2016

t0914 

# Order

Clerk September 21, 2016

153074

SHELBY TOWNSHIP,

Respondent

- Appellant,

v SC: 153074

COA: 323491

MERC: 12

- 000067

COMMAND OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF

MICHIGAN,

Charging Party

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 15, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. The Court r equests the appellee to file

an answer pursuant to MCR 7.305(D) within 35 days from the date of this order.
#### JOHN FREDERICK *vs.*ANDREW F. CLARK.

CERTIORARI TO A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.

The service of a summons issued by a justice of the peace, by leaving a copy at the usual place of abode of the defendant, with one of his family of suitable age and discretion, is sufficient to give the justice jurisdiction.

The truth or falsity of an officer’s return cannot be inquired into upon common law ' certiorari.

A common law certiorari brings up the record merely, and only such questions as go to the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal will be considered.

Upon common law certiorari the court will not look into the evidence upon which the justice rendered judgment. If the latter had jurisdiction, it is sufficient.

This was a common law certiorari issued to a justice of tbe peace of Dane county. Tbe opinion of the court discloses sufficiently tbe case.

Hood, for the plaintiff in error.

Boys, for tbe defendant in error.

*By the*Court,

Smith, J.

This is a common law certiorari issued to a justice of tbe peace of Dane county.

It appears by tbe return of tbe justice, that on tbe 29th day November, A. D..1854, be issued a summons at tbe suit of Andrew E. Clark against John Frederick, returnable December 11, 1854. Tbe summons was served by leaving a copy at tbe usual place of abode of tbe defendant, with one of bis family of suitable age and discretion, who was informed of its contents. This was sufficient to give tbe justice jurisdiction. If tbe officer made a false return, either originally, or by subsequent amendment, be is liable to the party injured, but tbe truth or falsity *192of his return cannot be collaterally inquired into in a proceeding like this.

It is contended by the plaintiff in this ■writ, that the justice erred in rendering judgment by default, without proof of the claim of the plaintiff below. This may be true, and at the proper time and in the proper mode the error might have been corrected. In the case of *Roberts vs. Warren*(3 *Wis. R.*736), a-similar question was brought before us upon a proceeding like this, but it was held that we could not look into alleged errors cf this kind upon a common law certiorari. .

This writ brings up the record merely, and only such questions as go to the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal can be considered. As before remarked, we think that the return shows that the justice had jurisdiction, and the judgment, therefore, must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
FILED # C2615
                                                           MAY 24, 2001
                                                         IN THE OFFICE OF
                                                           DEAN KELLER
                                                           -----------
                                                  DEAN KELLER SECRETARY OF STATE





            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                         LEGRED STRUTHERS GENETICS, INC.
                               (the "Corporation")

           The undersigned, being respectively the President and Secretary of
the Corporation, do hereby certify:

         1. The original articles were filed with the Office of the Secretary of
State on October 21, 1999.

           2. The Board of Directors of the Corporation at a meeting duly held
on the 1st day of May, 2001 adopted a resolution to amend the original articles
as follows:

           Article FIRST is hereby amended to read as follows:

"FIRST:              The name of the corporation is Struthers Genetics, Inc."

           3. The number of shares of the Corporation outstanding and entitled
to vote on an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation are 20,000, that the
said changes and amendments have been consented to and approved by the
stockholder holding all of the stock issued and outstanding and entitled to vote
thereon.


/s/ MARIANO RAIGO                                /S/ DENNIS D. GOURLEY
--------------------------                       ------------------------
Mariano Raigo, President                         Dennis D. Gourley, Secretary




STATE OF IOWA                                       )
                                                    )SS.:
COUNTY OF ALLAMAKEE                                 )

         On the 9TH day of May, 2001 before me personally appeared Mariano Raigo
and Dennis D. Gourley, each of whom acknowledged to me that he executed the
above instrument.

/S/ LAWRENCE D. McGRAW                  LAWRENCE D. McGRAW
----------------------                  MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
Notary Public                           NOVEMBER 30, 2004


<PAGE>