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

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Stephen Pelletier, Chief Executive Officer and President of Prudential Annuities Life
Assurance Corporation (the Company), hereby certify that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 13, 2010



/s/ Stephen PelletierName:

Stephen PelletierTitle:

Chief Executive Officer and President


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the
Report or as a separate disclosure document.
The Honorable Elsijane Trimble Roy, United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2166

___________

Gary Fountain, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

Stone Container, Inc.; United * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Paperworkers International Union, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: February 13, 1998

 Filed: March 2, 1998

___________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gary Fountain appeals the district court&s adverse grant of summary judgment 1

on his claims that his union breached its duty of fair representation and his employer

breached a collective bargaining agreement. After a careful review of the record and

the parties& submissions on appeal, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also grant appellees& joint motion to strike portions of the

joint appendix.
-2-

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DOMINIC S. BURNO,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 188 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of September, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Whether the Superior Court erred in concluding that the evidence was sufficient 

to convict [Burno] of criminal trespass, where the evidence showed that [Burno] 

was a tenant of the residence at issue and had not been properly evicted 

pursuant to the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1951 (68 P.S. § 250.101), prior to the 

criminal action having been filed against him?

M.D. Appeal Dkt.

47 2017
Case: 2:18-cr-00027-EAS Doc #: 27 Filed: 04/05/18 Page: 1 of 9  PAGEID #: 96

Case: 2:18-cr-00027-EAS Doc #: 27 Filed: 04/05/18 Page: 2 of 9  PAGEID #: 97

Case: 2:18-cr-00027-EAS Doc #: 27 Filed: 04/05/18 Page: 3 of 9  PAGEID #: 98

Case: 2:18-cr-00027-EAS Doc #: 27 Filed: 04/05/18 Page: 4 of 9  PAGEID #: 99

Case: 2:18-cr-00027-EAS Doc #: 27 Filed: 04/05/18 Page: 5 of 9  PAGEID #: 100

Case: 2:18-cr-00027-EAS Doc #: 27 Filed: 04/05/18 Page: 6 of 9  PAGEID #: 101

Case: 2:18-cr-00027-EAS Doc #: 27 Filed: 04/05/18 Page: 7 of 9  PAGEID #: 102

Case: 2:18-cr-00027-EAS Doc #: 27 Filed: 04/05/18 Page: 8 of 9  PAGEID #: 103

Case: 2:18-cr-00027-EAS Doc #: 27 Filed: 04/05/18 Page: 9 of 9  PAGEID #: 104
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
NCMIC INSURANCE CO.,
Plaintiff, Case No. 2:18-cv-533
v. CHIEF JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

RYAN D. SMITH, D.C., et. al,
Defendants,

OPINION AND ORDER

On October 22, 2018, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 20) recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment
(ECF No. 19) be denied without prejudice, and that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Synergy
Chiropractic be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) for failure to timely effect
service, The Report and Recommendation advised the parties that failure to object within
fourteen days would result in a waiver of review by a District Judge. The time for filing
objections has passed, and no objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation.

Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 20).
Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE (ECF No. 19),
and Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Synergy Chiropractic are DIMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. The Clerk is DIRECTED to remove Defendant Synergy Chiropractic from the

case.


IT IS SO ORDERED.

(I~ )y -yolo Pre

DATE EDMEND A. SARGUS, JR.
COMED A. SA STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION

OHIO A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, et al. :

:

Plaintiffs, : Case No. 1:18-cv-357

:

v. : Judge Timothy S. Black

: Judge Karen Nelson Moore

GOVERNOR JOHN R. KASICH, et al. : Judge Michael H. Watson

:

Defendants. :

NOTICE TO THE COURT

The Ohio Attorney General and E. Mark Braden hereby notify the Court and the Parties 

that they will not be appealing this Court’s Order (Doc. 121) compelling production of certain 

documents to the Plaintiffs. Therefore, documents produced in response to that Order no longer 

need to be designated “Attorneys’ Eyes Only.”

MIKE DEWINE

Ohio Attorney General

s/ Tiffany L. Carwile

TIFFANY L. CARWILE (0082522)

*Lead Counsel for Braden Subpoenas

ANDREW FRASER (0097129)

BRIDGET C. COONTZ (0072919)

Assistant Attorneys General

Constitutional Offices Section

30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor

Columbus, Ohio 43215

Tel: 614-466-2872 | Fax: 614-728-7592

tiffany.carwile@ohioattorneygeneral.gov

andrew.fraser@ohioattorneygeneral.gov

bridget.coontz@ohioattorneygeneral.gov

Counsel for the Ohio Attorney General and 

Non-party witness E. Mark Braden

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 127 Filed: 12/21/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 3463
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 21, 2018, the foregoing was filed electronically. 

Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties for whom counsel has entered an appearance by 

operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the 

Court’s system. I further certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served by e-mail or 

facsimile upon all parties for whom counsel has not yet entered an appearance and upon all 

counsel who have not entered their appearance via the electronic system.

s/ Tiffany L. Carwile

TIFFANY L. CARWILE (0082522)

Assistant Attorney General

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 127 Filed: 12/21/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 3464
Heli Electronics Corp.: Exhibit 10.5 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Supplemental Agreement 

Party A: Suzhou Haier Information Technology Co., Ltd.

Address: 702B, South ChuangPai Building, Haier Industrial Park, No. 1, Haier
Road, Qingdao 
Tel: 0532-88937818 
Fax: 0532-88937826 

  E-mail: 

Party B: Guangzhou Heli Information Technology Co., Ltd.

Add: Room 1118, East Tower, Time Squire, No. 30, Tianhe North Road,
Guangzhou 
Tel: 020-22646876 
Tax: 020-22646868 

  E-mail: 

Party A and Party B signed “Distributor Agreement” on 8th
April 2008, according to "The People's Republic of China Contract Law" and
other relevant legal provisions, for distribution of Haier brand multimedia
speakers, mini-combination speakers, and home theater products. Hereby both
parties enter into this supplemental agreement for the Distributor Agreement,
and agree on the following terms: 

	1. 	
      Since Party B was still in the early stage of opening
      during the first year after the signing of the Distributor Agreement, a
      lot of potential markets were still under development, and the national
      economy was obviously sluggish against the backdrop of global financial
      crisis, Party B was bound to have incurred a significant impact for its
      sales performance. Thereby, after consultation, the two parties agree to
      make amendments for No.6 term under Section 2: for if Party B fails to
      complete the monthly sales plan for inventory of audio and visual product,
      Party A will not pursue Party B’s responsibility any more, and the
      Distributor Agreement remains effective.

	 	 
	2. 	
      By mutual consultation, both parties agree to make
      amendments for No.3 term under Section 5 as following: Party A will take
      charge of setting up special after-sales service stations for each sales
      website, and be full responsible for after-sales service. Party B will no
      longer be responsible for it.

	 	 
	3. 	
      This supplemental agreement is reached by a consensus
      through full negotiations by the two parties on a basis of equality and
      willingness. It takes effect from the date of signature by both
      parties.

	 	 
	4. 	
      This supplemental agreement is in duplicate, and each
      party holds one.




	Party A Corporate Seal 	 Party B Corporate Seal 
	Date: 2010-01-08 	Date: 2010-01-08
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



In connection with the Annual Report of Universal Health Realty Income Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles F. Boyle, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Trust, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(i) the Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Trust at the end of, and for the period covered by the Report.



/s/ Charles F. BoyleVice President and Chief Financial OfficerMarch 14, 2005




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Trust and will be retained and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of HF Financial Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe quarterly period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Darrel L.Posegate, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
|   |   /s/ Darrel L.  Posegate                                     |                                |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|   | Darrel L. Posegate,  Executive Vice  President, Chief Financial Officer |
|   | and Treasurer                                                           |
|   |                                                                    |
|   | Date:                                                                   |   February 10,  2006 |   |
|        |                                                                         |                                     |  |  |

 

 

----

*                                         A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to HF Financial Corp. and will be retained by HF Financial Corp. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                         <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>               12-MOS  
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                   OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                     SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                95,867
<SECURITIES>                           8,160
<RECEIVABLES>                        172,720
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                           18,528
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     328,534
<PP&E>                               762,074
<DEPRECIATION>                       250,871
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       871,274
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                156,443
<BONDS>                              229,504
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                               8,747
<OTHER-SE>                           449,075
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         871,274
<SALES>                              719,743
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     719,743
<CGS>                                539,665
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        539,665
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     102,979
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    11,884
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       81,600
<INCOME-TAX>                          11,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   70,500
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                          70,500
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            .76
<EPS-DILUTED>                            .75
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

DAVID E. KIDD, : Case No. 3:18-cv-131

:

Petitioner, : Judge Thomas M. Rose

 :

v. :

: 

TIM SHOOP, Warden, Chillicothe :

Correctional Institution, :

:

Respondent. :

______________________________________________________________________________

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOCS. 6, 9, 12);

ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 5), 

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 8), AND 

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 

11); DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DOC. 1) 

WITH PREJUDICE; AND TERMINATING CASE

______________________________________________________________________________

This habeas corpus case is before the Court on the Objections (Docs. 6, 9, 12) filed 

by pro se Petitioner David E. Kidd (“Kidd”) to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendations (“Report”) (Doc. 5), Supplemental Report and Recommendations 

(“Supplemental Report”) (Doc. 8), and Second Supplemental Report and 

Recommendations (“Second Supplemental Report”) (Doc. 11). Pursuant to Habeas Rule 

4, Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz determined that Kidd is plainly not entitled to relief 

in this Court and therefore recommended that his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(“Petition”) be dismissed. Kidd filed Objections to the Report, after which the Court 

referred the matter back to Magistrate Judge Merz for further consideration. Magistrate 

Judge Merz entered the Supplemental Report, which reached the same conclusion, and 
2

to which Kidd again objected. Again, this Court referred the matter back to Magistrate 

Judge Merz for further consideration. Magistrate Judge Merz’s Second Supplemental 

Report addressed Kidd’s Objections, even though they were time barred, and concluded 

that his Petition still must be dismissed. Kidd filed Objections to the Second 

Supplemental Report. As further consideration by the Magistrate Judge is unnecessary, 

this matter is ripe for review. 

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the 

Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court 

finds that Kidd’s Objections (Docs. 6, 9, 12) to the Report (Doc. 5), Supplemental Report 

(Doc. 8), and Second Supplemental Report (Doc. 11) are not well-taken and are hereby 

OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 5), Supplemental Report (Doc. 8), 

and Second Supplemental Report (Doc. 11) in their entirety and rules as follows:

1. Kidd’s Petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

2. Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, Kidd 

is DENIED a certificate of appealability;

3. The Court hereby CERTIFIES to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would 

be objectively frivolous and therefore should not be permitted to proceed 

in forma pauperis; and

4. This case is TERMINATED on the Court’s docket.

DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Friday, July 13, 2018. 

 s/Thomas M. Rose

________________________________

THOMAS M. ROSE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      18,426,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              124,550,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,896,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                     925,518,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (33,936,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,076,197,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                    514,408,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     46,000
<COMMON>                                       210,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 502,260,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,076,197,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           105,458,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               54,681,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,079,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               959,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          23,991,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             48,962,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         48,962,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                48,962,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.06<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.97
<FN>
<F1>  For Purposes of this Exhibit, Primary means Basic.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
          18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report of Comet Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Richard B. Stuart and Jack M. Gertino, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

      (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: March 28, 2006              /s/ Richard B. Stuart
                                  -----------------------------------------
                                  Richard B. Stuart, Chief Executive Officer


Date: March 28, 2006              /s/ Jack M. Gertino
                                  -----------------------------------------
                                  Jack M. Gertino, Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

STORM E. MASON, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 1 EAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 29th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED. 

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
Applied Innovation Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-62646, 33-94582, 333-100681, 333-68608, 333-67259, and 333-4432) on Form S-8
of Applied Innovation Inc. of our reports dated March 7, 2005, with respect to
the consolidated balance sheets of Applied Innovation Inc. as of December 31,
2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2004, and related financial statement schedule, which
reports appear in the December 31, 2004, annual report on Form 10-K of Applied
Innovation Inc.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Columbus, Ohio
March 7, 2005
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.19

                                AMENDMENT TO THE
               1999 STOCK OPTION PLAN FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS

     Effective January 22, 2002 that Section 2 of the 1999 Stock Option Plan for
Non-Employee Directors (the "Plan") is hereby amended to read as follows:

     2.  Shares Subject to the Plan.  Subject to the adjustment as provided in
Article 7, the total number of shares of common stock, $.10 par value (the
"Common Stock") of the Company for which options may be granted under the Plan
shall be 1,500,000 Shares of Common Stock (the "Shares"). The Shares shall be
shares currently authorized but unissued or currently held or subsequently
acquired by the Company as treasury shares, including shares purchased in the
open market or in private transactions. If any option granted under the Plan
expires or terminates for any reason without having been exercised in full, the
Shares subject to, but not delivered under, such option may become available for
the grant of other options under the Plan. To the extent that Shares are
delivered to pay the exercise price of an option, the number of Shares so
delivered shall again be available for grant under the Plan.