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








In
      connection with the Annual Report of
      Golden Health Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A4 for the period
      ended September 30, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      (the
“Report”), we, Kam Lau, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Shit Yin
      Wong, 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 consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates
      presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the
      periods presented.








/s/
      Kam
      Lau


Kam
      Lau


Chief
      Executive Officer


January
      18, 2008





/s/
      Shit Yin
      Wong


Shit
      Yin
      Wong


Chief
      Financial Officer


January
      18, 2008
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 on Form 10-K of PAREXEL International Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Josef H. von Rickenbach, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to his 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 28, 2009



/s/    JOSEF H. VON
RICKENBACHJosef H. von RickenbachChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to PAREXEL International Corporation and will be retained by PAREXEL International Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
All data has been removed from this file as a result of CBI sanitization. All data provided as a part of the 

FGD wastewater forwarding pump proposal is considered CBI or CBI deducible.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.56


FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION 
DIRECTORS RESTRICTED STOCK DEFERRAL PLAN 
(2008 Amendment and Restatement) 


WHEREAS, The Progressive Corporation (“Company”) maintains The Progressive Corporation Directors Restricted Stock Deferral Plan pursuant to the 2008 Amendment and Restatement thereof; and 
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend the Plan further; 
NOW, THEREFORE, effective January 23, 2009, the Plan is hereby amended in the respects hereinafter set forth: 
		
	1.
	The first sentence of Section 4.1 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to provide as follows:


“Each eligible director who elects to participate in this Plan for any Plan Year shall file a Deferral Election with the Committee before the beginning of such Plan Year, or before such later date as may be permitted by law, provided that any director was not a director during the previous two (2) Plan Years may file a Deferral Election with the Committee (i) within thirty (30) days after he/she is elected to the Board and (ii) prior to the grant of Restricted Stock which is the subject of such Deferral Election.” 
2.       Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, the terms and provisions of the Plan shall remain unchanged and continue in full force and effect.
IN WITHESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by a duly authorized officer as of the 3rd day of February, 2009. 


THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION
By: /s/ Charles E. Jarrett 
Title: Secretary
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Deranty E. TAYLOR, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4584

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 21, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
msbi_Current_Folio_Ex1033



		

			Exhibit 10.33

		





		
			AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
		

		
			 
		

		
			THIS AMENDMENT NO.  1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of December 15, 2017 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Midland States Bank, an Illinois banking corporation (the “Bank”, hereinafter referred to as the “Employer”), and James R. Stewart (“Executive”).
		

		
			 
		

		
			RECITALS
		

		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 A.
			

			
	
			
			The Executive is currently employed as Chief Risk Officer of the Bank and has entered into an Employment Agreement with the Bank, dated as of February 20, 2017 (the “Employment Agreement”).




		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 B.
			

			
	
			
			The Chief Executive Officer of the Bank has recommended, and the Midland States Bancorp, Inc. (the Company”) Compensation Committee has approved, changes to the target Incentive Bonus and long-term incentive bonus percentages for the Executive.




		
			 
		

		
			AGREEMENTS
		

		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 1.
			

			
	
			
			The reference in Section 4(b) of the Employment Agreement to a target Incentive Bonus is hereby amended to “not less than forty percent (40%)”; and a new sentence shall be added as follows: “The long-term incentive bonus percentage for the Executive shall be forty-five percent (45%).”




		
			 
		

		
			In all other respects the Employment Agreement shall remain fully in force and effect.
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the Effective Date.
		

		
			 
		

		
			MIDLAND STATES BANKJAMES R. STEWART
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			By:  /s/ Leon J. Holschbach/s/ James R. Stewart 
		

		
			Name:  Leon J. Holschbach[Signature]
		

		
			Its:  Chief Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-03-241-CR

THOMAS EDWARD BLANKENSHIP	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	In one point, appellant Thomas Edward Blankenship appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence of methamphetamine found in appellant’s possession after a traffic stop.  Appellant concedes that the officer who found the drugs lawfully stopped him for a traffic violation.  Appellant’s sole complaint on appeal is that the traffic violation for which the officer investigated appellant was a mere pretext to investigate appellant for “some other unknown reason.”  Appellant acknowledges that the court of criminal appeals has rejected the pretext stop doctrine under both the federal and state constitutions, but urges this court to revisit the issue.  See Crittenden v. State, 899 S.W.2d 668, 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Garcia v. State, 827 S.W.2d 937, 944 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).  Because we are bound by court of criminal appeals precedent, we decline to do so.  Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s sole point and affirm the trial court’s judgment.  

								TERRIE LIVINGSTON

								JUSTICE

PANEL A:	LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 12, 2004
From: Rogers, Bob

To: Fritchie, Denis ; Boyd, Christopher Subject: FW: SIP Amendment Comments

Date: Monday, February 24, 2014 2:41:29 PM
Attachments: MPO Comment - SIP Amedment 02.24.14.pdf

Bob Rogers, Manager
Pollution Control Shelby County Health Department

814 Jefferson Ave. Memphis TN 38105 (901)222-9599

From: Kate.Horton@memphistn.gov [mailto:Kate.Horton@memphistn.gov] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 1:45 PM To: Rogers, Bob Cc: Srivastava, Pragati; Ray, Andrew - City of Memphis Subject: SIP Amendment Comments

Good Afternoon Bob,

Hope you had a nice weekend. The MPO has reviewed the SIP Amendment and our comments are attached.

Thank you,

Kate Horton, RLA, ASLA Memphis MPO Transportation Planner

125 North Main Street

Suite 450 Memphis, TN 38103

901.576.7218
#### GREEN PARTY OF GEORGIA, Constitution Party of Georgia, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Brian KEMP, Georgia Secretary of State, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-11689

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(February 1, 2017)

Laughlin McDonald, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Inc., Atlanta, GA, *975J. M. Raffauf, Raffauf Law Office, Roswell, GA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees

Cristina Maria Correia, Julia B. Anderson, Josiah Benjamin Heidt, Russell D. Willard, Attorney General’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WILSON and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and BARTLE,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Harvey Bartle III, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of the district court is affirmed based on the district court’s well-reasoned opinion. *See Green Party of Ga. v. Kemp,*171 F.Supp.3d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2016).

AFFIRMED.
HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 60356 1993
EXHIBIT
32.2


CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002






I,
William L Sklar, the acting Chief Financial Officer of Integrated Media
Holdings, Inc., 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
Integrated Media Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Integrated Media Holdings,
Inc.





Date: April
      15, 2008
            By:
      /s/   William SklarName:   William
      L SklarTitle:
      Acting Chief Financial 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.
#### Elbert Maurice MAYFIELD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Justin ANDREWS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6254

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 23, 2017

Elbert Maurice Mayfield, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Elbert Maurice Mayfield, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order and *141judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Mayfield v.*Andrews, No. 5:15-hc-02170-BO (E.D.N.C. Feb. 10, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Ricardo Mancano SILVA, Appellant, v. Priscilla LEMOS, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1455

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 3, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of American Telstar, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the year ended July 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael L.
Schumacher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

and

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

Date: October 29, 2007

By:  /s/ Michael L. Schumacher
     -------------------------------------
     Michael L. Schumacher - Secretary,
     Treasurer & Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATIONS

Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
(SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I,
Sir Emeka Offor, certify that:



|By: /s/SIR EMEKA OFFOR |  | December 30, 2002                                                 
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  | Sir Emeka Offor Chairman of the Board
Principal Executive Officer)

---

CERTIFICATIONS

Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
(SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I,
Chude Mba, certify that:



|By: /s/CHUDE MBA |  | December 30, 2002                                                                      
|---------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                 |  | Chude Mba Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)

---

CERTIFICATIONS

Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
(SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I,
Eze Echesi, certify that:



|By: /s/EZE ECHESI |  | December 30, 2002                                                
|----------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|                  |  | Eze Echesi Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer)

---

QuickLinks
EX PARTE Rondrez Allen BARKER

1160141 (CR-15-0684)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

January 13, 2017

Cert. denied.
PART II -
OTHER INFORMATION





Exhibit
32.2 Section 906 CFO Certification




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the filing of this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter
Ended July 5, 2009 (the "Report") by Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc., the undersigned
hereby certifies that:





1.
            The
      Report containing the financial statements fully complies with the
      requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended, and





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




August
24, 2009


/s/ Craig J. PropstCraig
      J. PropstSenior
      Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial
  Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
EX PARTE Rodney BOWDEN

1160316 (CR-15-0817)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Rentrak Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David I. Chemerow, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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:

(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.



|    |  |                                                                        
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ David I. Chemerow                                                  
|    |  | David I. Chemerow                                                      
|    |  | Chief Operating Officer and
Chief Financial Officer Rentrak Corporation

June 14, 2010
Rita ROBINSON v. Martha GIBBS

2160161

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 23, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Robin Claire CRANE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D15-1916

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
SEA FORCE IX, INC., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. COTTY FAY MARINE DESIGN INC., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0463

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### Lisa Ann ATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOVERNING BOARD OF CREIGHTON SCHOOL DISTRICT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-16242

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 27, 2017

Lisa Ann Atkins, Pro Se

Robert D. Haws, Attorney, Gust Rosen-feld, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Lisa Ann Atkins appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her employment action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); *O’Donnell v. Vencor Inc.,*466 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2006) (statute of limitations and application of equitable tolling where facts are undisputed). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. *Thompson v. Paul,*547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Atkins’s equal protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as barred by Arizona’s two-year statute of limitations because Atkins filed this action eight years after the injury accrued. *See Douglas v. Noelle,*567 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (§ 1983 claims are governed by forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions, and accrue when the plaintiff knows or should know of the injury that is the basis of the cause of action); *see also*Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542 (two year statute of limitations for personal injury action).

The district court properly dismissed Atkins’s gender discrimination claim under Title VII because Atkins failed to file this action within ninety days of receiving a right-to-sue letter. *See*42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (action must be filed within ninety days of issuance of the right to sue letter); *Payan v. Aramark Mgmt. Servs. Ltd. P’ship,*495 F.3d 1119, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2007) (Title VII action must be commenced within ninety days after receipt of a right to sue letter). The district court properly found that equitable tolling did not apply to Atkins’s Title VII claim because Atkins failed to show extraordinary circumstances beyond her control that justified equitable tolling. *See Stoll v. Runyon,*165 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that equitable tolling is warranted “when extraordinary circumstances beyond the plaintiffs control made it impossible to file a claim on time”); *O’Donnell,*466 F.3d at 1111 (“[w]here a complaint is timely filed and later dismissed, the timely filing of the complaint does not toll or suspend the ninety day limitations period” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

*586Dismissal of Atkins’s negligence claim was proper because it was barred by the statute of limitations. *See*Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542 (two year statute of limitations for negligence claim).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 72-1 Filed: 12/10/18 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 486
Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 72-1 Filed: 12/10/18 Page: 2 of 8 PAGEID #: 487
Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 72-1 Filed: 12/10/18 Page: 3 of 8 PAGEID #: 488
Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 72-1 Filed: 12/10/18 Page: 4 of 8 PAGEID #: 489
Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 72-1 Filed: 12/10/18 Page: 5 of 8 PAGEID #: 490
Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 72-1 Filed: 12/10/18 Page: 6 of 8 PAGEID #: 491
Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 72-1 Filed: 12/10/18 Page: 7 of 8 PAGEID #: 492
Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 72-1 Filed: 12/10/18 Page: 8 of 8 PAGEID #: 493