alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32

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 Quixote Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the Annual Period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer's knowledge:



|Date: September 25, 2003 |  | /s/LESLIE J. JEZUITLeslie J. Jezuit, Chief Executive Officer
|------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: September 25, 2003 |  | /s/DANIEL P. GOREYDaniel P. Gorey, Chief Financial Officer  

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.

53

---

QuickLinks
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 133861 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STAT E OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133861 COA: 266369 Kent CC: 05-001001-FH MICHAEL JAY JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 15, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would grant leave to appeal for th e reasons stated in her dissent in People v Bell , 473 Mich 275 (2005).

p0830 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 10, 2007

Clerk
<PAGE>   1


DYNATECH CORPORATION                                                 EXHIBIT 11


<TABLE>
         COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
         ---------------------------------
<CAPTION>

                                                                                Historical
                                                                                  Weighted
                                                                                   Average
                                                                                    Shares
                                                                                ----------
         <S>                                                                    <C>
         For the year ended March 31, 1995:
                  Weighted average common stock outstanding,
                  net of treasury stock                                         17,846,000
                                                                                ==========

         For the year ended March 31, 1996:
                  Common stock outstanding, net of treasury stock,
                  beginning of year                                             17,572,000
                  Weighted average treasury stock issued during the year           461,000
                  Weighted average common stock equivalents                        351,000
                  Weighted average treasury stock repurchased                      (69,000)
                                                                                ----------

                  Weighted average common stock outstanding,
                  net of treasury stock                                         18,315,000
                                                                                ==========

         For the year ended March 31, 1997:
                  Common stock outstanding, net of treasury stock,
                  beginning of year                                             17,584,000
                  Weighted average treasury stock issued during the year           144,000
                  Weighted average common stock equivalents                        838,000
                  Weighted average treasury stock repurchased                     (538,000)
                                                                                ----------

                  Weighted average common stock outstanding,
                  net of treasury stock                                         18,028,000
                                                                                ==========
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
      32.1 - SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION





ORION
      DIVERSIFIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC


CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I,
      Irwin
      Pearl, 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
      Orion Diversified Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ended April
      30,
      2006 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-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial
      condition and results of operations of Orion Diversified Technologies,
      Inc.




Date:
      September 11, 2006





/s/
      Irwin Pearl


Chief
      Executive Officer


Date:
      September 11, 2006





/s/
      Irwin Pearl


Chief
      Financial Officer


Date:
      September 11, 2006
# C_2015294EN.01000601.xml

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-63/14) (1)

1

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Illegal aid incompatible with the internal market - Obligation of recovery - Absolutely impossible - Compensation for a service additional to the basic service))

(2015/C 294/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and D. Colas and N. Rouam and J. Bousin, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to recover from Société Nationale Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) the State aid declared illegal and incompatible with the internal market by Article 2(1) of Commission Decision 2013/435/EU of 2 May 2013 on State aid SA.22843 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) within the periods prescribed, by failing to cancel all the payments of aid referred to in Article 2(1) of that decision within the periods prescribed, and by failing to inform the Commission of the measures taken to comply with that decision within the period prescribed, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 298, fourth paragraph, TFEU and Articles 3 to 5 of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to recover from Société Nationale Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) the State aid declared illegal and incompatible with the internal market by Article 2(1) of Commission Decision 2013/435/EU of 2 May 2013 on State aid SA.22843 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) within the periods prescribed, by failing to cancel all the payments of aid referred to in Article 2(1) of that decision within the periods prescribed, and by failing to inform the Commission of the measures taken to comply with that decision within the period prescribed, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 298, fourth paragraph, TFEU and Articles 3 to 5 of that decision;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.

1

---
No. 10-647.

#### George Wysocki, Petitioner v. International Business Machines Corporation, dba IBM, Inc.

562 U.S. 1169, 131 S. Ct. 945,

178 L. Ed. 2d 804,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 54.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 607 F.3d 1102.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          91,115
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,763,762
<ALLOWANCES>                                    31,926
<INVENTORY>                                  1,849,561
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,895,530
<PP&E>                                       7,289,500
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,752,410
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,721,915
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,465,266
<BONDS>                                      1,838,594
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       412,761
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,935,048
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,721,915
<SALES>                                     17,340,432
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,340,432
<CGS>                                       11,565,534
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,565,534
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             328,176
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,328,511
<INCOME-TAX>                                   507,134
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            821,377
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   821,377
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.2

 

AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE

TO THE DEFERRED SALARY & PROFIT SHARING PLAN 
 FOR EMPLOYEES OF ORBITAL SCIENCES CORPORATION

 

Pursuant to the powers of amendment reserved under Article XXVI of the Deferred Salary & Profit Sharing Plan for Employees of Orbital Sciences Corporation (the “Plan”), restated as of January 1, 2011, Orbital Sciences Corporation (the “Company”) hereby amends the Plan as follows:

 

1.

 

Section 3.1 shall be amended by deleting the first sentence thereof in its entirety and by substituting the following therefor:

 

“Each Eligible Employee may commence as soon as administratively feasible on or after the date he or she first meets one of the following requirements:

 

(a)    he or she becomes employed by the Employer and, upon employment, is scheduled to work 1,000 Hours of Service during a 12-consecutive month period; or

 

(b)    he or she is credited with one (1) Year of Participation Service under the Plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any Eligible Employee who, prior to [April 1, 2012], did not commence participation in the Plan due to the fact that he or she had not yet attained age 21 shall commence participation as soon as administratively feasible after the later of [April 1, 2012] or the date he or she meets the conditions for eligibility set forth in subsection (a) or (b), whichever is applicable.”

 

2.

 

Section 3.5 shall be amended by deleting the first sentence thereof in its entirety and by substituting the following therefor:

 

“Notwithstanding the provisions of this Article III to the contrary, each Eligible Employee who is first hired by the Employer effective on or after August 1, 2008 shall be automatically enrolled in the Plan effective 60 days following the Eligible Employee’s date of hire.”

 

3.

 

This Amendment Number One shall be effective as of [April 1, 2012].

 

*************

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment Number One to the Plan to be signed by its duly authorized officer, effective as of the date set forth above.

 











 

	
 
    	
ORBITAL SCIENCES CORPORATION
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Emily Bender
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Sr. Vice President, Human Resources
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Date:
    	
5/10/2012
EXHIBIT 21.1
                      ------------
             SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
             ------------------------------

The Company has the following subsidiaries, each of which is wholly
owned by the Company or by a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Company. Indented names are subsidiaries of the company under which
they are indented.


  Envirodyne Subsidiary, Inc. (Delaware)
  Envirosonics, Inc. (California)
  Viskase Corporation (Pennsylvania)
     Viskase Holding Corporation (Delaware)
        Viskase Australia Limited (Delaware)
        Viskase (Chile) Embalajes Ltda. (Chile)
        Viskase Brasil Embalagens Ltda. (Brazil)
        Viskase Europe Limited (United Kingdom)
           Viskase S.A. (France)
                Viskase Canada Inc. (Ontario)
                Viskase GMBH (Germany)
                Viskase Holdings Limited (United Kingdom)
                     Filmco International Limited (United Kingdom)
                     Viskase Limited (United Kingdom)
                          Viskase Ireland (Ireland)
                          Viskase (U.K.) Limited (United Kingdom)
                              Envirodyne S.A.R.L. (France)
                Viskase S.p.A. (Italy)
                Viskase Polska SP.ZO.O (Poland)
     Viskase Sales Corporation (Delaware)
        Viskase Puerto Rico Corporation (Delaware)
  Viskase Films, Inc. (Delaware)
  WSC Corp. (Delaware)
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23 - 50617 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Rene Santes -**  **Cortez,** Defendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:21 - CR - 1686 - 1

**______________________________** Before **Graves, Willett,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The attorney appointed to represent Rene Santes - Cortez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Santes - Cortez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 29, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-50617 Document: 60-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2024No. 23 - 50617

2 concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2 . Case: 23-50617 Document: 60-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/29/2024
#### William Swezey, Appellant, v Michael C. Fina Co., Inc., et al., Respondents.

[52 NYS3d 325]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered June 15, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint to the extent of dismissing the first, second, fourth and fifth causes of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*498Plaintiff, a former at-will sales representative for defendants, commenced this action for breach of an oral contract and related claims based on an alleged promise, by defendants, to pay plaintiff commissions past his termination. The motion court properly dismissed the breach of contract and related claims because the purported oral agreement is unenforceable under the statute of frauds *(see e.g. Guterman v RGA Accessories,*196 AD2d 785 [1st Dept 1993]; *Bennett v Atomic Prods. Corp.,*74 AD3d 1003, 1005 [2d Dept 2010]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Maz-zarelli, Feinman and Gische, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 128 (Monday, July 6, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17806]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National 
Seashore Advisory Commission; Notice of Meeting Cancellation

    Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act that the meeting of the Golden Gate National Recreation 
Area and Point Reyes National Seashore Advisory Commission previously 
scheduled for Wednesday, July 8, 1998 (62 FR 67091, December 23, 1997) 
in San Francisco will be canceled.
    The Advisory Commission was established by Public Law 92-589 to 
provide for the free exchange of ideas between the National Park 
Service and the public and to facilitate the solicitation of advice or 
other counsel from members of the public on problems pertinent to the 
National Park Service systems in Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo 
Counties.
    Members of the Commission are as follows:

Mr. Richard Bartke, Chairman
Ms. Naomi T. Gray
Mr. Michael Alexander
Ms. Lennie Roberts
Mr. Trent Orr
Ms. Jacqueline Young
Mr. R.H. Sciaroni
Dr. Edgar Wayburn
Mr. Mel Lane
Ms. Amy Meyer, Vice Chair
Dr. Howard Cogswell
Mr. Jerry Friedman
Ms. Yvonne Lee
Mr. Redmond Kernan
Mr. Merritt Robinson
Mr. John J. Spring
Mr. Joseph Williams

    Dated: June 22, 1998.
Len McKenzie,
Deputy Superintendent, Golden Gate National Recreation Area.
[FR Doc. 98-17806 Filed 7-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
No. 10-6818.

#### James Mallard, Petitioner v. Christopher Potenza, et al.

562 U.S. 1071, 131 S. Ct. 664,

178 L. Ed. 2d 496,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9053.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Same case below, 376 Fed. Appx. 132.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.36

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                    AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


      This Amendment No. 1 (this "Amendment") dated as of December 1, 2004, is
made by and between Vanguard Health Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), and Charles N. Martin, Jr. (the "Executive").


      WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive executed a certain Amended and
Restated Employment Agreement (the "EA") dated as of September 23, 2004, to
secure the services of the Executive as its Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
of the Board; and

      WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive wish the Executive's base salary
set forth in Section 6(a) of the EA to be increased to $1,019,700, effective as
of January 1, 2005.

      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants
herein contained, the Company and the Executive hereby agree that the EA is
amended as follows:

      1. Defined Terms. Except for those terms defined above, the definitions of
      capitalized terms used in this Amendment are as provided in the EA.

      2. Amendment to Section 6(a). Section 6(a) of the EA entitled "Base
      Salary" is hereby deleted and replaced with the following new Section
      6(a):

            " (a). Base Salary. The Executive's base salary hereunder, from
            September 23, 2004 to December 31, 2004, shall be $990,000 per year,
            payable semi-monthly. Effective January 1, 2005, the Executive's
            base salary hereunder shall be $1,019,700 per year, payable
            semi-monthly. The Board shall review such base salary at least
            annually and make such adjustments from time to time as it may deem
            advisable, but the base salary shall not at any time be reduced from
            the base salary in effect from time to time."

      3. Ratification. All other provisions of the EA remain unchanged and are
      hereby ratified by the Company and the Executive.

<PAGE>

                                      - 2 -

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed
by its duly authorized officer and the Executive has executed this Amendment,
each as of the day and year first set forth above.

                                    VANGUARD HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.

                                    By: /s/ Ronald P. Soltman
                                       ---------------------------------
                                            Ronald P. Soltman
                                            Executive Vice President

                                    EXECUTIVE:

                                    /s/ Charles N. Martin, Jr.
                                    ------------------------------------
                                    Charles N. Martin, Jr.
2016-1904.

#### U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Lavelle.

Cuyahoga App. No. 104234, 2016-Ohio-7783. Reported at 148 Ohio St.3d 1461, 2017-Ohio-2632, 73 N.E.3d 523. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
No. D-2526.

#### In the Matter of Discipline of Robert Lee Ehrlich.

562 U.S. 812, 131 S. Ct. 402,

178 L. Ed. 2d 267,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7626.

October 4, 2010.

Robert Lee Ehrlich, of Calabasas, California, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.