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





I, Jerome
R Mahoney, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:





1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





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








Date: May
20, 2009





By: /s/ Jerome R Mahoney


Jerome R
Mahoney


President,
Chief Executive Officer and


Principal
Financial Officer
Third Amendment to Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan




 Exhibit 10.5 

THIRD AMENDMENT TO 

FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 

The FleetCor Technologies, Inc. Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan (“Plan”) is hereby amended as follows: 

1. 
 Section 3(a) of the
Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 
 “a. Number of Shares. Subject to adjustment under
Section 3(c), the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock, $0.001 par value per share, of the Company (the “Common Stock”), that may be issued pursuant to the Plan is 7,085,260 shares. If any Award expires, or is terminated,
surrendered or forfeited, in whole or in part, the unissued Common Stock covered by such Award shall again be available for the grant of Awards under the Plan. If shares of Common Stock issued pursuant to the Plan are repurchased by, or are
surrendered or forfeited to, the Company at no more than cost, such shares of Common Stock shall again be available for the grant of Awards under the Plan; provided, however, that the cumulative number of such shares that may be so reissued
under the Plan will not exceed 7,085,260 shares. Shares issued under the Plan may consist in whole or in part of authorized but unissued shares or treasury shares.” 

All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning as set forth in the Plan. 

To the extent anything in this Amendment is in conflict with the Plan, this Amendment shall control. Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, the
terms and conditions of the Plan shall continue in full force and effect. 
 This Amendment shall become effective as of the 21st day of June,
2006. 
  

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Ronald F. Clarke

	Name:	 	Ronald F. Clarke
	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer
	  
 Adopted by the Board of Directors on June 21,
2006
  
 Adopted by the Stockholders on June 21,
2006
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 hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of China Pharma Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:





(1)  The Company’s Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








Dated:  March 15, 2011





/s/ Frank Waung


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


Name: Frank Waung


Title: Chief Financial Officer


(principal financial officer and principal accounting officer)








This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





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.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Salary.com, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), G. Kent Plunkett, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Bryce Chicoyne, Senior Vice President and 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 our best knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be deemed a part of the Report, nor is it to be deemed to be
filed for any purpose whatsoever.

Date: February 9, 2009



/s/ G. Kent PlunkettG. Kent Plunkett Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)


Date: February 9, 2009



/s/ Bryce ChicoyneBryce Chicoyne Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
. California Environmental Protection Agency 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

Executive Order S-11-001 

WHEREAS, Attachment A hereto sets forth the currently effective version of the 

California Regulation for Reducing Emissions from Consumer Products (title 17, 

California Code of Regulations, Subchapter 8.5, Article 2, sections 94508-94517 

(Consumer Products Regulation)), as adopted by the California Air Resources Board; 

WHEREAS, Attachment B hereto identifies the regulatory action in which the 

Air Resources Board amended the Consumer Products Regulation set forth in 

Attachment A; 

WHEREAS, the Consumer Products Regulation set forth in Attachment A incorporates 

all of the amendments made by the regulatory action identified in Attachment B; 

WHEREAS, the Air Resources Board is authorized to adopt, amend, and enforce the 

referenced regulation by California Health and Safety Code sections 39600, 39601, 

39607, and 41712; 

WHEREAS, the referenced regulation has been duly adopted and amended by the Air 

Resources Board through regulatory actions taken in accordance with the California 

Administrative Procedure Act as set forth in Chapter 3.5 (commencing with 

section (11340)), Part 1, Division 3, title 2, of the Government Code, and in accordance 

with other applicable laws; 

WHEREAS, the regulatory action incorporated in and reflected by the referenced 

regulation was approved by the California Office of Administrative Law, and thereafter 

became effective under State law; ·-

WHEREAS, the Air Resources Board is authorized by California Health and Safety 

Code sections 39601 and 39602 to adopt and amend its regulations as revisions to the 

State of California Implementation Plan for Achieving and Maintaining the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (SIP); 

WHEREAS, the adoption of the regulation set forth in Attachment A as a revision to the 

SIP is necessary to meet the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act; and 

WHEREAS, by the Resolution 09-51 and Executive Order R-10-013, the Air Resources 

Board adopted the regulatory action identified in Attachment B, and direCted the 

Executive Officer to submit this material to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

for inclusion in the SIP, and to include in the SIP revisions any additional 
documentation identified as necessary for approvability under the federal Clean Air Act 

and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regulations. 

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 39515 and 39516 of the 

California Health and Safety Code, that th!=l regulation set forth in Attachments A and B 

hereto is hereby adopted as a revision to the SIP and forwarded to the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

I certify, pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations, 51.1 02(f), that the regulation set 

forth in Attachments A and B w~s ad9pted. or amended after notice and public hearings 

as required by 40 Code of Federal Regulations 51.1 02(d). 

Executed this ;;P da,y of .:/dnuff , 2011, at Sacramento, California. 

Enclosures 

2 

Jame N. Goldstene 

Executive Officer 

'fc;r:
Dismissed and Opinion Filed May 18, 2015 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00798-CV 

DAVID FLORES, Appellant 

V. 

BLANCA FLORES, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-17367 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

The filing fee and appellants’ brief in this case are overdue. By postcard dated June 20, 

2014, we notified appellant the $195 filing fee was due. We cautioned appellant that failure to 

pay the filing fee would result in dismissal of this appeal. After the clerk’s record was filed, we 

sent a second fee notice by postcard on October 24, 2014. We again cautioned appellant that 

failure to pay the filing fee would result in dismissal of this appeal. By postcard dated March 6, 

2015, we notified appellants the time for filing appellant’s brief had expired. We directed 

appellant to file his brief and an extension motion within ten days. We cautioned appellant that 

failure to file a brief and an extension motion would result in the dismissal of this appeal without 

further notice. Thereafter, on March 13, 2015, appellant filed a motion to extend time to file his 

brief. That motion was granted and the time to file appellant’s brief was extended until April 3, 
 –2– 

2015. We expressly cautioned appellant that failure to file a brief by the deadline might result in 

dismissal of the appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, filed 

a brief, filed an extension motion, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status 

of this appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b)(c).

140798F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

DAVID FLORES, Appellant 

No. 05-14-00798-CV V. 

BLANCA FLORES, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-17367. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee BLANCA FLORES recover her costs of this appeal from 

appellant DAVID FLORES. 

Judgment entered May 18, 2015.
FILEDIN COURTOFAPPEALS 12th CourtofAppeals District


### CATHYS. LUSK, C
FILE COPY RE: Case No. 15-0141 DATE: 8/14/2015 COA #: 12-13-00005-CV TC#: 2012-876-A STYLE: THE GOOD SHEPHERD HOSPITAL, INC. v. RONALD HASTEN AND CHARLENE HASTEN 

### Today the Supreme Court of Texas denied the motion for rehearing of the above-referenced petition for review.

HS. CATHY S. LUSK CLERK, TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS 1517 WEST FRONT, SUITE 354 TYLER, TX 75702
EXHIBIT 3.3

STATE OF DELAWARE  SECRETARY OF STATE  DIVISION OF  CORPORATIONS  FILED 09:00 AM
01/29/1996 960026950 - 2530006

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                               USTN HOLDINGS, INC.

                     Pursuant to Section 241 of the General
                    Corporation Law of the State of Delaware

         THE  UNDERSIGNED,  being the Chairman of the Board of Directors of USTN
HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, does hereby certify as follows:

          FIRST:  That the  Certificate  of  Incorporation  has been  amended by
striking  out the  first  paragraph  of  Article  FOURTH  as it now  exists  and
inserting in lieu thereof the following:

      The total number of shares of stock which the  Corporation  shall
      have  authority to issue is Twelve  Million One Hundred  Thousand
      (12,100,000)  shares of  stock,  of which  One  Hundred  Thousand
      (100,000)  shares  shall be Preferred  Stock,  par value $.01 per
      share ("Preferred Stock"), and Twelve Million (12,000,000) shares
      shall be Common Stock, par value $.01 per share ("Common Stock").

         SECOND:  That the  corporation  has not received any payment for any of
its stock and that this  amendment has been duly adopted in accordance  with the
provisions  of  Section  241 of the  General  Corporation  Law of the  State  of
Delaware by resolutions of the board of directors.

          IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  I have  hereunto  set my hand  this 23rd day of
January, 1996.

                                           /s/Greg Wilkinson
                                          Greg Wilkinson, Chairman of the Board
kpmg.htm









 


Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


 


The Board of Directors


Kansas City Life Insurance Company:


 


We consent to the use of our report dated February 28, 2013 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Kansas City Life Insurance Company (the Company) and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, and the related consolidated statements of comprehensive income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2012, and all related financial statement schedules, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012; and to the use of our report dated April 26, 2013 with respect to the statement of net assets of Kansas City Life Variable Annuity Separate Account (comprising individual subaccounts as listed in note 1 to the financial statements) as of December 31, 2012, and the related statement of operations for the year or period then ended; the statements of changes in net assets for each of the years or periods in the two-year period then ended; and financial highlights for each of the years or periods in the five-year period then ended, which reports appear in the Statement of Additional Information accompanying the Prospectus of Century II Affinity Variable Annuity, included in the Post-Effective Amendment No. 17 of the Registration Statement under the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 (File No. 333-52290) on Form N-4 and to the reference to our firm under the heading “Experts”, also in the Statement of Additional Information.


 


As discussed in note 3 to the consolidated financial statements, effective January 1, 2012, the Company modified the types of costs incurred that can be capitalized when issuing or renewing insurance contracts due to the prospective adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2010-26, Accounting for Costs associated with Acquiring or Renewing Insurance Contracts.


 


/s/ KPMG LLP


 


Kansas City, Missouri


April 30, 2013
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

I 

ci AUSTIN 

Honorable I. L. chandl,er 

county maitor 

Montague County 

Montague, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

Your request for oplnf 

rule ooneiaerea by this dspar 

qusat as r0ima: 

E from your retitle to rsoeive 

The case dioh I 

The sherlrr a this two case8 aga 

mm paid 

stlce Couxt. 

our dollars eaoh.,- 

that has beeCcolr a numbsr or years. 

OaQes, to be taxed against the deimaant on conviotlon: 

"1. For exeouting aahh vtrarrant Or arre6t or 

oaplas, or i-king arrest wft.hout warrant, two dollars." 
t 

Honorable I. L. ohandlor - Page 8. 

I 

I 

In answer to your t3p60iri0 question we reepeotiullp 

advise that it 18 our opinion that 8hsrirrrr and oonstablse am 

0ntitha to a ree 0r $2.00 ror each 18 

asmsanor oaaea. TP 

arrert Ma0 in mir- 

(Thlm or oourse ino u BI legal arrsate made 

In Justioa Court orlmlnal oaesa.) In this oonneotion we are 

enoloelng herewith a oopy of Opinion No. 0-ll00 of this departmat rhioh may be helpful in various raot situations 

v&ioh you may hare b&ore you. 

to& very truly 

k.TTOFBGtY GEli- OF TEXAS
1

Moran, Nicole

From: William Bider <wbider@kdheks.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:47 AM

To: Toensing, Don; Moran, Nicole; Callier, James

Cc: Gary Mason; John Mitchell; Dennis Degner; Christine Mennicke; Darian Dernovish

Subject: Kansas Part 256 CCR Solid Waste Management Plan

Attachments: Draft Part 256 CCR Plan 2015-06-30.pdf

Don, 

In accordance with your e-mail dated June 24, 2015 sent in response to my earlier request for EPA’s “preliminary 

review” of the Kansas Part 256 CCR solid waste management plan, I am submitting our DRAFT plan for review by 

EPA. The preliminary review is being requested for two purposes: (1) to receive initial feedback from EPA before KDHE 

initiates the required public participation process; and (2) to facilitate a prompt review and approval by EPA after KDHE 

completes the public participation process. It is KDHE’s goal to receive EPA approval of the plan before the effective 

date of the first CCR regulations (October 19, 2015). We realize this is an optimistic goal, but we believe it is doable and 

beneficial with respect to assessing and ensuring compliance with the regulations. 

A pdf copy of the Kansas plan is attached for your review. Since neither KDHE nor EPA could find an original Kansas Part 

256 solid waste management plan, we prepared a plan that addresses all relevant issues required in the original plans in 

addition to the Kansas approach to administering a compliance and enforcement program for the new federal CCR 

regulations. The plan explains the regulatory approach in detail. It will include both modified enforceable permits and 

permit documents that incorporate all CCR regulations to be followed by the adoption of the CCR regulations by 

reference. Right from the first effective date (October 19, 2015), KDHE will have regulatory authority to enforce these 

regulations through existing permits and associated permit documents such as facility operating plans.

KDHE is asking EPA for an initial overall assessment of the Kansas plan from a content perspective. Does the plan 

include all information that is necessary for approval? Based upon your early feedback, we will initiate the public 

participation process leading to adoption of the plan. Following adoption, hopefully with few if any changes, the final 

plan will be submitted to EPA so you can officially complete your review. 

As you review the DRAFT plan more thoroughly, please provide us with any comments you may have that could be 

incorporated into our final plan. If at any time during your preliminary review, you would like a meeting to discuss the 

plan, we would be happy to come to your offices to facilitate the process. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you for your willingness to review the Kansas plan following this approach to facilitate early approval. 

Bill Bider 

Director 

Bureau of Waste Management 

(785) 296-1612
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7454

In Re: ALANI OLUSEGUN ARAWOLE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(CR-97-283-L, CA-00-66-L)

Submitted: March 7, 2003 Decided: March 18, 2003

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alani Olusegun Arawole, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Alani Olusegun Arawole petitions for a writ of mandamus,

alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. He seeks an order from this court

directing the district court to act. The district court entered an

order on February 24, 2003, denying relief as to three of Arawole’s

claims and appointing counsel for the remaining claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, because the

district court has recently taken significant action in Arawole’s

case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to

proceed in forma pauperis. 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. 

PETITION DENIED
#### Westville Coal Company v. Otto Wood, by his Next Friend, etc.

1. Employer and *Employe—Remaining in the Employment After Promise to*Repair.—Where an employe called the attention of his employer to the fact, that the place where he worked was not in a proper condition, telling him he would quit his employment unless it was repaired, and was told to get along the best he could and the place would be repaired as soon as possible, and such employe continued in *617such employment, and was injured shortly afterward in consequence of such condition, *it was held*that he did not lose his right to recover by remaining in the employment after such promise to repair.

Trespass on the Case, for personal injuries. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Vermilion County; the Hon. Ferdinand Bookwalter, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the May term, 1901.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed September 11, 1901.

D. D. Evans and G. M. McDowell, attorneys for the appellant.

Wilson *&*Kent and Mabin *&*Glare, attorneys for the appellee.

Mr. Justice Wright

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellee sued appellant for injuries received in the latter’s coal mine, in consequence of the alleged negligence of the mine owner to repair certain alleged defects to which attention had been called. The recovery was for $1,000, and to reverse the judgment this appeal has been brought, the chief ground of complaint being that the verdict is not supported by the evidence.

Appellee, being nineteen years of age, was employed to drive a mule and coal car inside the mine. In the entry was a wet or soft place. Cross-bars had been placed there to support the roof. One end of the bar rested in the side of the entry, and the other end was supported by a leg or prop set upon the ground, the latter having settled in the soft mud or earth, so that the cross-bar was too low, and-interfered with the back, or rump, of the mule when it passed under it. Appellee testified that he called the attention of the boss to the condition of things, and told him he would quit unless the place was repaired, and was told by the boss to get along the best he could and the place would be repaired as soon as possible. Appellee remained, and shortly after this the mule kicked, in consequence of the touch of the bar upon its back. Appellee dodged the kick of the mule, and in doing so was caught by the low part of the cross-bar, thrown back upon the car load of coal and so injured. We are of the opinion the evidence warranted the *618verdict that was returned. After having its attention called to the defective condition of its entry, and promising to repair it, appellant was clearly negligent in not doing so. Appellee did not assume the extra hazard, having the right to rely upon the promise of the master to repair. He was not guilty of contributory negligence, as the evidence shows he occupied the usual place of the driver at the time of the injury.

There were no prejudicial errors in the rulings of the court upon the evidence or the instructions to the jury, and the judgment of the Circuit Court will be affirmed.