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

**CERTIFICATION      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**RULE      13a-14(b)/15d-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934      AND**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

|   | (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:                  October 26, 2007 | By:                                                                                          | /s/                  Seung Kwon Noh |
|                                    | Seung                  Kwon Noh                                                                        |
|                                    | President                  & Chief Executive Officer(Principal                  Executive Officer) |

----
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATIONS**
 
 
 I, Mark P. Colonnese, certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AtheroGenics, Inc.;
 
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4.  The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 (b)  [Reserved]
 
 (c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 (d)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5.  The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  Date: November 1, 2004
 
 /s/MARK P. COLONNESE
 Mark P. Colonnese
 Senior Vice President of Finance and
 Administration and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit
        23(ii)**
 
  **Consent
        of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
 
 
 *To
        the Board of Directors*
 *General
        Electric Capital Services, Inc.:*
 
 We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
        33-7348) on Form S-3 of General Electric Capital Services, Inc. of our report
        dated February 9, 2007, relating to: (i) the statement of financial position
        of
        General Electric Capital Services, Inc. and consolidated affiliates as of
        December 31, 2006 and 2005, (ii) the related statements of earnings, changes
        in
        shareowner’s equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
        period ended December 31, 2006, (iii) the related financial statement schedule,
        (iv) management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
        financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, and (v) the effectiveness of
        internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, which
        report
        appears in the December 31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of General Electric
        Capital Services, Inc. Our report refers to a change in the method of accounting
        in 2006 for pension and other postretirement benefits.
  Our
        aforementioned report expresses our opinion that General Electric Capital
        Services, Inc. did not maintain effective internal control over financial
        reporting as of December 31, 2006 because of the effect of a material weakness
        on the achievement of the objectives of the control criteria and contains
        an
        explanatory paragraph that states that management has identified and included
        in
        its assessment the following material weakness as of December 31, 2006: the
        Company did not have adequately designed procedures to designate each hedged
        commercial paper transaction with the specificity required by Statement of
        Financial Accounting Standards 133, *Accounting
        for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,* as
        amended.
  /s/
        KPMG
        LLP
 KPMG
        LLP
 Stamford,
        Connecticut
 February
        27, 2007
Case: 1:17-mj-00632-KLL Doc #: 3 Filed: 05/24/19 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 17
Case: 1:17-mj-00632-KLL Doc #: 3 Filed: 05/24/19 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 18
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7496
RICHARD S. FETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRUCE C. MORRIS, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; SANDRA COMBS; WINNIE DIXON; JOSEPH LEWIS; LINDA R. PITMAN; E. MONTGOMERY TUCKER, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-96-749-R) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard S. Fett, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant, a Virginia inmate, app eals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2) (1994), amended by Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Fett v. Morris , No. CA-96-749-R (W.D. Va. Sept. 12, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion requestingfree copying of appeal papers. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EX-10.24(d)



 Exhibit 10.24(d) 

AMENDED AND RESTATED TERM NOTE 
  

			
	U.S. $684,960.05	  	June 13, 2011

 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, on the Term Loan Termination Date (as defined in the Loan Agreement referred to
hereinafter), the undersigned, Duluth Holdings Inc., a Wisconsin corporation (“Holdings”), and Duluth Trading Company, LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability company (“Trading,” and collectively with Holdings, the
“Borrowers”), jointly and severally, promise to pay to the order of Harris N.A. (the “Lender”) the principal sum of Six Hundred Eighty-Four Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty and 05/100 Dollars ($684,960.05), together with interest
pursuant the Loan Agreement. 
 The Borrowers promise to pay interest on the unpaid principal amount hereof from the date hereof until such
principal amount is paid in full at the rates and at the times provided in the Loan Agreement. 
 This Note is the Term Note referred to in
the Amended and Restated Loan Agreement between Borrowers and Lender dated as of the date hereof (the Loan Agreement, as amended, modified, supplemented or restated from time to time being the “Loan Agreement”). 

Presentment and demand for payment, notice of dishonor, protest and notice of protest are hereby waived. In the event of default, the
Borrowers agree to pay costs of collection and reasonable attorneys’ fees (whether or not suit is commenced), including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees and legal expenses incurred in connection with any appeal of a lower court’s
judgment or order. 
 This Note is an amendment and restatement of the Promissory Note dated as of May 12, 2010 executed by Borrowers
and Sugar River Advertising, LLC in favor of Lender in the original principal amount of $900,000, and is not a novation. 
  

			
	DULUTH HOLDINGS INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Mark DeOrio

	Name:	 	Mark DeOrio
	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer
	
	DULUTH TRADING COMPANY, LLC
	By: Duluth Holdings Inc., its sole member
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Mark DeOrio

	Name:	 	Mark DeOrio
	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4284 

To extend the Generalized System of Preferences and the Andean Trade 

Preference Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 11, 2009 

Mr. RANGEL (for himself and Mr. LEVIN) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the Generalized System of Preferences and the 

Andean Trade Preference Act, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF 

4 PREFERENCES. 

5 Section 505 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 

6 2465) is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2009’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘December 31, 2010’’. 

8 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE ACT. 

9 (a) EXTENSION.—Section 208(a) of the Andean 

10 Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3206(a)) is amended in 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4284 IH

1 paragraphs (1) and (2) by striking ‘‘December 31, 2009’’ 

2 each place it appears and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2010’’. 

3 (b) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN APPAREL ARTICLES.— 

4 Section 204(b)(3) of the Andean Trade Preference Act 

5 (19 U.S.C. 3203(b)(3)) is amended— 

6 (1) in subparagraph (B)— 

7 (A) in clause (iii)— 

8 (i) in subclause (II), by striking ‘‘7 

9 succeeding 1-year periods’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘8 succeeding 1-year periods’’; and 

11 (ii) in subclause (III)(bb), by striking 

12 ‘‘and for the succeeding 2-year period’’ and 

13 inserting ‘‘and for the succeeding 3-year 

14 period’’; and 

15 (B) in clause (v)(II), by striking ‘‘6 suc16 ceeding 1-year periods’’ and inserting ‘‘7 suc17 ceeding 1-year periods’’; and 

18 (2) in subparagraph (E)(ii)(II), by striking 

19 ‘‘December 31, 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 

20 2010’’. 

21 (c) REPORT.—Section 203(f)(1) of the Andean Trade 

22 Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3202(f)(1)) is amended by 

23 striking ‘‘April 30, 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘June 30, 2010’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4284 IH

1 SEC. 3. CUSTOMS USER FEES. 

2 Section 13031(j)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus 

3 Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)) 

4 is amended— 

5 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘February 

6 14, 2018’’ and inserting ‘‘May 14, 2018’’; and 

7 (2) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ‘‘Feb8 ruary 7, 2018’’ and inserting ‘‘June 7, 2018’’. 

9 SEC. 4. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED 

10 TAXES. 

11 The percentage under paragraph (1) of section 

12 202(b) of the Corporate Estimated Tax Shift Act of 2009 

13 in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act is in14 creased by 1.5 percentage points. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

GARY L. MCCOY, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 3:17-cv-432 

vs. 

DR. RODNEY L. CARLSON, et al., District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

 Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman 

 Defendants. 

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOC. 141); AND (2) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. 89) 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Michael J. 

Newman (Doc. 141), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The parties 

have not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time for filing such objections 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) the Report 

and Recommendation (Doc. 141) is ADOPTED in full; and (2) Defendants’ motion to dismiss the 

third amended complaint (Doc. 89) is DENIED AS MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: December 3, 2019 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 Thomas M. Rose 

 United States District Judge
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 Organic Soils.com, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ray
L. Smith, 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:

     (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  result of operations of the
Company.



                         By: /s/ Ray L. Smith
                         ----------------------
                         Ray  L  Smith
                         Chief  Executive  Officer
                         November 13,  2002
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

1

IN THE MATTER OF: 1

i CASE No.

THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE 1

WARRANTS, APPLICATIONS, PEN j CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

REGISTERS, AND NON- \ ELIZABETH A. PRESTON-DEAVERS

DISCLOSURE ORDERS IN THE |

CASES LISTED IN ATTACHMENT |

A

FILED UNDER SEAL

ORDER TO UNSEAL

Upon the Motion ofthe United States Attorney and for good cause shown, it is

ORDERED that the Search and Seizure Warrants, Applications, Pen Registers, and NonDisclosure Orders and related documents in the cases listed in Attachment A in the above-entitled

matter, be unsealed.

Case: 2:18-mj-00007-CMV Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/29/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 49
ATTACHMENT A:

2:17-l\/lJ-434 2:18-MJ-007 2:18-MJ-756 2:19-MJ-001 2:19-MJ-471

2:17-MJ-585 2;18-MJ-8 2:18-MJ-840 2;19-MJ-45 2:19-MJ-481

2;17-MJ-586 2:18-MJ-9 2:19-MJ-121 2:19-MJ-498

2:17-MJ-587 2:18-MJ-10 2:19-MJ-122 2:19-MJ-510

2:17-MJ-588 2:18-MJ-17 2:19-MJ-127 2:19-MJ-512

2:17-MJ-589 2;18-MJ-51 2:19-MJ-153 2:19-MJ-527

2:17-MJ-617 2:18-MJ-61 2:19-MJ-174 2:19-MJ-528

2:17-MJ-644 2:18-MJ-92 2:19-MJ-175 2:19-MJ-553

2:17-MJ-676 2:lS-MJ-205 2:19-MJ -191 2:19-MJ-560

2:17-MJ-677 2:18-MJ-213 2:19-MJ-255 2;19-MJ-561

2:17-MJ-678 2:18-MJ-232 2:19-MJ-265 2:19-MJ-562

2:17-MJ-679 2:18-MJ-326 2:19-MJ-266 2;19-MJ-563

2:17-MJ-696 2;18-MJ-355 2:19-MJ-272 2:19-MJ-564

2:17-MJ-713 2:18-MJ-379 2:19-MJ-273 2:19-MJ-570

2;17-MJ-714 2:18-MJ-397 2:19-MJ-276

2;17-MJ-715 2:18-MJ-398 2:19-MJ-290

2;17-MJ-747 2:18-MJ-404 2:19-MJ-291

2;17-MJ-758 2:18-MJ-411 2:19-MJ-320

2;17-MJ-759 2:18-MJ-429 2:19-MJ-348

2:17-MJ-761 2:18-MJ-434 2:19-MJ-349

2:17-MJ-762 2:18-MJ-460 2:19-MJ-379

2:17-MJ-782 2:18-MJ-498 2:19-MJ-414

2:17-MJ-791 2:18-MJ-512

2:18-MJ-515

2:18-MJ-532

2:19-MJ-460

Case: 2:18-mj-00007-CMV Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/29/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 50
#### Earnest D. BRADFORD *v.*Thomas Michael VERKLER

81-51

619 S.W. 2d 636

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered July 13, 1981

[Rehearing denied September 14, 1981.]

*Dodds, Kidd, Ryan & Moore,*by: *Donald S. Ryan,*for appellant.

*Hanshaw & Feland,*for appellee.

Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice.

Appellee, Cabot police office Thomas Verkler, sued appellant for a leg injury he received when kicked by the appellant; the complaint alleged both negligence and assault and battery as the cause of the injury. Appellant appeals an $8,250.00 jury verdict alleging that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict in his favor on the issue of negligence, there being no substantial evidence as a matter of law for the jury’s consideration on this theory.

In determining on appeal the correctness of the trial *318court’s action concerning a motion for a directed verdict by either party, the test is to take that view of the evidence that is most favorable to the party against whom the verdict is sought and to give it its highest probative value, taking into account all reasonable inferences deducible from it, and to grant the motion only if the evidence viewed in that light would be so insubstantial as to require that a jury verdict for the party be set aside. *Miller*v. Tipson, 272 Ark. 1 (1981); *O’Brian v. Primm,*243 Ark. 186, 419 S.W. 2d 323 (1967); St. *Louis Southwestern Railway Co.*v. *Farrell, Adm’x.,*242 Ark. 757, 416 S. W. 2d 334 (1967). Substantial evidence is that which is of sufficient force and character that it will compel a conclusion one way or another. It must force or induce the mind to pass beyond a suspicion or conjecture. *Jones*v. State, 269 Ark. 119, 598 S.W. 2d 748 (1980).

Although the defendant-appellant, Bradford, was the moving party for a directed verdict on the issue of negligence, we find that he alone supplied the substantial evidence necessary to sustain the trial court’s denial of his motion. He testified that, while officers Younts and Verkler attempted to move him to another cell against his wishes, Younts struck him on the arms and head with a slapper; that Verkler tried to push him from the rear while Younts was hitting him and that he (appellant) “might have thrown my hands up and run backwards, but I never made an attempt to hit or kick either one of them”; that he knew Verkler and that Verkler was trying to protect him; that “I pushed back and we [he and Verkler] ran up against the cot”; that the only thing he could figure was that Verkler “got hurt on the cot back behind when I went up against the front of the cell. . . and pushed backward.” We find this to be substantial evidence of negligent behavior on appellant Bradford’s part and, therefore, affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for a directed verdict.

Affirmed.
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 Quarterly Report of Hymedix, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
G. Gridley, Jr., 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: (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/ WILLIAM G. GRIDLEY
                                               -----------------------------
                                               William G. Gridley
                                               Chief Financial Officer
#### Alice P. Cameron *vs.*Margaret Cameron (estate of William J. Cameron).

May 28, 1940.

*W. B. Perry, Jr.,*for the petitioner.

*J. P. Sylvia, Jr.,*for the respondent.

Decree affirmed. The record is silent as to evidence or findings at the hearing. It furnishes no basis for any contention that there was error.