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,
      Trent
      Sommerville, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
      of
      Heartland, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my
      knowledge:





(1)
      the
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended December
      31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
      (a)
      or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
      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: *May
      19, 2006*





*/s/
                Trent Sommerville*
              *Trent
                Sommerville*
              *Principal
                Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer*
#### Donald L. RAGAVAGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF WILMINGTON, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-2361

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: June 5, 2017

Thomas A. Woodley, Megan K. Mechak, WOODLEY & MCGILLIVARY LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Scott C. Hart, SUMRELL, SUGG, CARMICHAEL, HICKS *&*HART, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Donald Ragavage appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment for the Appellee on Ragavage’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) claims based on his termination because Ragavage was not disciplined or terminated by an official with final policymaking authority. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Ragavage v. City of Wilmington,*No. 7:15-cv-00085-FL, 2016 WL 6537668 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 2016). 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*
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Blake M. Edwards, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 of Grayson Bankshares, 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 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)

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



(c)

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 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:  August 12, 2005

/s/ Blake M. Edwards

Blake M. Edwards

Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1,000
<CASH>                                           5,533
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     23,183
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        161,675
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,330
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 200,061
<DEPOSITS>                                     170,430
<SHORT-TERM>                                       560
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,730
<LONG-TERM>                                     10,746
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,318
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,277
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 200,061
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 11,382
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  895
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                12,277
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,834
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,433
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,844
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      803
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   5
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,760
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,418
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,165
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,165
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.75
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.76
<LOANS-NON>                                        789
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,447
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   102
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  3,254
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,908
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      399
<RECOVERIES>                                        18
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,330
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,768
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            562
        

</TABLE>
#### Jerome PULLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director of Virginia Dept of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6458

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: August 1, 2017

Jerome Pulley, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jerome Pulley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012), When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the dis*167trict court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pulley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Pulley’s motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
#### METROPOLITAN PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Victor NIETO, Defendant, and Josh Pemberton, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14-35565

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 7, 2017 * Seattle, Washington

Filed March 09, 2017

John Woodruff Rankin, Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Jason Edward Vacha, Reed McClure, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

Jesse Froehling, Antoni Henry Froehl-ing, Attorney, Froehling Law Office, Pu-yallup, WA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: GRABER, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Josh Pemberton appeals from the entry of summary judgment in favor of Metropolitan Property and Casualty in this insurance coverage dispute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court correctly determined that Metropolitan had no duty to defend or indemnify Karen and Kenneth Nieto because their liability did not arise from an “occurrence” as defined in the policy. Pem-berton’s injuries did not result from an “accident” because Karen and Kenneth Nieto each engaged in deliberate acts and the injuries were a reasonably foreseeable. result of those acts, *see Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Butler,*118 Wash.2d 383, 823 P.2d 499, 509 (1992); *Grange Ins. Ass’n v. Roberts, 179*Wash.App. 739, 320 P.3d 77, 87 (2013), regardless whether the Nietos subjectively intended to injure Pemberton, *see Butler,*823 P.2d at 510; *United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Speed,*179 Wash.App. 184, 317 P.3d 532, 540 (2014).

Because his injuries did not result from an “accident,” Pemberton cannot establish that “the loss falls within the scope of the policy’s insured losses.” *Moeller v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash.,*173 Wash.2d 264, 267 P.3d 998, 1001 (2011) (quoting *McDonald v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,*119 Wash.2d 724, 837 P.2d 1000, 1003-04 *624(1992)). Summary judgment was therefore proper.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as. provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
D. S., SR., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0456

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 07, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Because D. S., Sr., has failed to serve an initial brief as provided by this court's order of April 27, 2018, this appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute.

BLACK, SLEET, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES**

 

Alliente, Inc. 

Alliente Limited (UK) 

Alliente Ireland 

Ariba Australia Pty Ltd. 

Ariba Canada, Inc. 

Ariba (China) Limited (Hong Kong) 

Ariba France, sarl 

Ariba GmbH (Germany) 

Ariba Holdings, Inc. (Cayman Islands) 

Ariba Iberia, S.L. (Spain) 

Ariba Italia, S.r.l. (Italy) 

Ariba Korea, Ltd. 

Ariba Latin America, Inc. 

Ariba Singapore Pte. Ltd. 

Ariba Switzerland GmbH 

Ariba Technologies India Private Limited 

Ariba Technologies Ireland Limited 

Ariba Technologies Netherlands B.V.

Ariba UK Limited 

FreeMarkets Asia Pte., Ltd (Singapore)

FreeMarkets Czech s.r.o. (Czech Republic) 

FreeMarkets GmbH(Germany) 

FreeMarkets International Holding Inc. de Mexico, de S. de R. L. de C. V. (Mexico) 

FreeMarkets International Holdings, Inc. (Delaware) 

FreeMarkets International, Inc. (Delaware) 

FreeMarkets Investments Company, Inc. (Delaware) 

FreeMarkets KK (Japan)

FreeMarkets, Ltd. (UK) 

FreeMarkets Ltda. (Brazil) 

FreeMarkets S.r.L. (Italy) 

FreeMarkets s.a./n.v. (Belgium) 

FreeMarkets Services Pvt. Ltd. (India) 

Goodex Iberia (Spain) 

Nihon Ariba KK 

SupplierMarket.com, Inc. 

Surplus Record, Inc. (Delaware) 

TradingDynamics, Inc. 

Tradex Technologies, Inc.
EX-10.66





 EXHIBIT 10.66 

Domino’s Pizza, Inc. 

Independent Director Compensation Schedule 

The following table sets forth the current compensation received by independent directors of Domino’s Pizza, Inc.: 

 

					
	Director Compensation Summary	 
		
	 Annual Retainer
	  	Amount	 
	 Board of Directors
	  	$	75,000	 
	 Audit Committee
	  			
	 Chairperson
	  	$	25,000	 
	 Member
	  	$	12,500	 
	 Compensation Committee
	  			
	 Chairperson
	  	$	20,000	 
	 Member
	  	$	10,000	 
	 Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee
	  			
	 Chairperson
	  	$	15,000	 
	 Member
	  	$	10,000	 
		
	 Annual Equity Award
	  	Value	 
	 Target grant date fair value
	  	$	123,000
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

July 22, 2020 

# Order

Clerk July 22, 2020

160 339 ( 12 9 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 160339

v COA: 327491

Wayne CC: 14

- 004600

- FH

DARRELL WILDER, a/k/a DARRELL

JOHN WILDER, a/k/a DARRELL J. WILDER,

Defendant

- Appellant

. _________________________________________/

By order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant

- appellant to extend the time

for filing his supplemental brief is GRANTED

. The brief will be accepted as timely filed

if submitted on or before September 7, 2020.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Felix Hernandez, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 892]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J), rendered June 21, 2002, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years probation, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant did not move to withdraw his plea, and since there is nothing in his plea allocution that would cast doubt on his guilt or on the voluntariness of his plea (see *People v Toxey,*86 NY2d 725 [1995]), the court was under no obligation to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into the remarks defendant made at sentencing (see *e.g. People v Toussaint,*294 AD2d 129 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 732 [2002]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin and Marlow, *JJ.*
No. 85-6369.

#### Keller *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

RECEIVED 

JUL 1 3 2015 

HEARING uOCKET 

In the Matter Of ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0119 

Spirit Avionics, LTD., 

Case No. 2012-GL-07-0056 

Respondent. 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 

COMPLAINANT'S MOTION PENDING THE DECISION 

OF RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO STRIKE FILED ON 7-1-2015 

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. § 13.213, Respondent hereby moves for ao extension of time to 

answer the Motion for Decision filed by Complainant on July 1, 2015 pending the ALJ's 

decision on Respondent's Motion to Strike the same filed on July 2, 2015. 

Respondent filed its Motion for Decision on June 1, 2015. As per 14 C.P.R.§ 13.218 (d), 

Complainaot had 10 days to respond after service of that written motion. Complainaot responded 

to Respondent's Motion on July1,2015 with its own Motion for Decision. Both Complainaot's 

response aod niotion were out 'of rule, as the response was beyond 10 days after service of 

Responciimt's Motion aod the cut-off' date for' dispositive motions was June 1, 2015. 

Accordingly, Respondent filed a Motion to Strike Complainaot's response and motion on July 1, 

2015. 

Therefore, Respondenfrespectfully requests that the ALJ graot this Motion for Extension 

of Time to respono to Complainaot' s July 1, 20 I 5 filing until after the ALI' has cdnsidered the 

Motion to Strike currently pending before it. 
Respectfully submitted, 

/ Eichenberger & Associates, Co. LP A 

/ 6037 Frantz Road, Suite 107 

/ Dublin, Ohio 43017 

Phone: 614-798-1600 

Facsimile: 614-798-1620 

Counsel for Respondent 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served upon the following parties by 

U.S. Mail this 6th day of July, 2015. 

FAA Hearing Docket 

800 Independence Ave, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk 

AGC-430, Wilber Wright Building 

Suite 2W1 000 

Fax: 202-267-1293 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Fax:202-366-7536 

Kate Barber 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel, AGL-7B 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, TI!inois 60018 

Fax: 847-294-7862 

}'aJ!ck ..... 

1/ 

(/
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; NIGMS Review of Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (COBRE) Phase 2 Applications.                    

*Date:*                         March 17-18, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Nina Sidorova, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3An.22, Bethesda, MD 20892-6200, 301-594-3663,                         *sidorova@nigms.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

 Dated: February 4, 2022. 

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-02788 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P