alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Report (as defined under the preceding Certification
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, Christian Baha,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Quadriga Asset Management, Inc., the
general partner of (the Fund, 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 Fund.

                                           By:  /s/ Christian Baha
                                           -----------------------
                                           Christian Baha
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           May 17, 2004
#### EARL FRANCIS v. CLEVELAND DRUG COMPANY.

(Filed 19 October, 1949.)

Negligence § 4d—

Plaintiff customer fell into an open stairway while in a part of a store which was not open for the accommodation of customers. *Held:*Judgment of nonsuit was properly entered.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Patton, Special Judge,*May Term, 1949, ClevelaND.

Affirmed.

Civil action to recover damages for personal injuries.

At tbe conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence in chief the court, on motion of defendant, entered judgment of nonsuit and plaintiff appealed.

*Horace Kennedy and C. 0. Horn for plaintiff appellant.*

*D. Z. Newton for defendant appellee.*

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff went to defendant’s drug store to get a prescription filled. "While waiting, he saw someone, not an employee of defendant, go to a refrigerator in a small storage room adjoining the prescription room and get a Coca-Cola. He went to the refrigerator and got one for himself. After drinking the Coca-Cola he undertook to place the empty bottle on a shelf in the room near an open stairway leading to the basement. In so doing, he fell into the open stairway and suffered certain personal injuries. The room was not open for the accommodation of customers and plaintiff was not invited therein by defendant. Upon this state of facts the judgment must be affirmed on authority of *Clark v. Drug Co.,*204 N.C. 628, 169 S.E. 217, and *Wilson v. Dowtin,*215 N.C. 547, 2 S.E. 2d 576.

Affirmed.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5539 

To reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation Reauthorization 

Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 7, 2006 

Mr. POMBO (for himself, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. GILCHREST, Mrs. DRAKE, Mr. 

KENNEDY of Minnesota, Mr. DINGELL, and Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Resources 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation 

Reauthorization Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘North American Wet5 lands Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

7 Section 7(c) of the North American Wetlands Con8 servation Act (16 U.S.C. 4406(c)) is amended by striking 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5539 IH

1 ‘‘fiscal year 2007’’ and inserting ‘‘each of fiscal years 

2 2007 through 2011’’. 

Æ 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5370 

To amend the Clean Air Act to require that gasoline contain at least 15 

billion gallons of renewable fuel by the year 2012, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 11, 2006 

Mr. FORTENBERRY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Clean Air Act to require that gasoline contain 

at least 15 billion gallons of renewable fuel by the year 

2012, 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. RENEWABLE CONTENT OF GASOLINE. 

4 Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act is amended as 

5 follows: 

6 (1) In paragraph (2)(B)(i), in the table, strike 

7 ‘‘7.5’’ and insert ‘‘15.0’’ . 

8 (2) In paragraph (2)(B)(IV)(ii)(aa), strike 

9 ‘‘7,500,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘15,000,000,000’’ . 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 2582-027]

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, Commission staff has reviewed the application for amendment of license for the Station 2 Project (FERC No. 2582) and has prepared a final environmental assessment (final EA). The project is located on the Genesee River in Monroe County, New York.

The final EA contains the Commission staff's analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed addition of new generating capacity and concludes that authorizing the amendment, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

                    Copies of the final EA are available for review in the Public Reference Room 2-A of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The final EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Internet Web site (                    *http://www.ferc.gov*) using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (202) 502-6088, or on the Commission's Web site using the eLibrary link. For assistance with eLibrary, contact                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*                     or toll-free at (866) 208-3676; for TTY contact (202) 502-8659.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E9-5772 Filed 3-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
[Cite as Kirchner v. Shooters on the Water, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 348, 2009-Ohio-3714.]

K IRCHNER , A DMR ., A PPELLANT , v . S HOOTERS ON THE W ATER , I NC . ET AL ., A PPELLEES . [Cite as Kirchner v. Shooters on the Water, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 348, 2009-Ohio-3714.] Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority of Lang v. Holly Hill Motel,
Inc. (No. 2006-1682

— Submitted June 16, 2009

— Decided August 4, 2009.) A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 86919, 167 Ohio App.3d 708, 2006-Ohio-3583.

__________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc. , 122 Ohio St.3d 120, 2009-Ohio-2495, 909 N.E.2d 120

. M OYER , C.J., and L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur. P FEIFER , J., dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc.

__________________ Paul W. Flowers Co., L.P.A., and Paul W. Flowers; and Law Offices of Frank Gallucci and Leon M. Plevin, for appellant. Valore & Cruse Co., L.P.A., Jeffrey M. Elzeer, and Kathryn A. Kerka; and Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, L.L.P., and Mark J. Valponi, for appellees Shooters on the Water, Inc., and Roger Loecy. Davis & Young and George W. Lutjen, for appellees Michael Miller, Judith Miller, and Gabrielle Miller. Dennis R. Spirgen, for appellee S ugar Warehouse Limited Partnership.

______________________
AAM-11-263-E April 18, 2011

Exemption No. 10251 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0354

Mr. Kevin Mills

Mills Brothers Aviation

11668 Church Road Burnt Cabins, PA 17215

Dear Mr. Mills:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated April 4, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Mills Brothers Aviation (Mills) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow Mills to cover its safetysensitive employees under one testing program while operating under separate parts of the regulation.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Mills.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Mills Brothers Aviation an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Mills to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program while operating under separate parts of the regulation, subject to the

conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Mills Brothers Aviation are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the auspices of the Mills Brothers Aviation part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on May 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ Frederick E. Tilton, M.D. Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 11539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5777]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER09-556-000; Docket Nos. ER09-556-000; and ER06-615-039; 
ER08-367-003]


California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice 
Shortening Answer Period

March 11, 2009.
    On March 6, 2009, the California Independent System Operator 
Corporation (CAISO) filed a Motion to Modify Effective Date of Certain 
Proposed Tariff Revisions and for Expedited Answer Period (March 6 
Motion). In the filing, CAISO requests that the Commission establish an 
expedited time period to file answers to the motion in order to 
facilitate Commission consideration of the motion. By this notice, the 
date for filing answers to CAISO's March 6 Motion is shortened to and 
including March 13, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-5777 Filed 3-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Vincent LEE, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee.

No. 8111.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

May 28, 1965.

Tosh Suyematsu, Cheyenne, Wyo., for appellant.

Richard H. Seaton, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Kansas, Topeka, Kan. (Robert C. Londerholm, Atty. Gen. of Kansas, with him on the brief), for appellee.

Before PICKETT, BREITENSTEIN and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

 The trial court denied without hearing the petition of appellant, a state prisoner, for federal habeas corpus. The sole ground for relief is the alleged denial by the Kansas Supreme Court of a speedy hearing on appellant’s appeal to that court. Such appeal was filed on August 11, 1964, and was set for hearing on May 10, 1965. At the oral argument before us, counsel for appellee stated, and counsel for appellant did not deny, that the hearing was continued on the motion of appellant. In the circumstances, federal habeas corpus is not available because appellant has not exhausted the remedies available in the state courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 435, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837; Ex Parte Davis, 318 U.S. 412, 63 S.Ct. 679, 87 L.Ed. 868; Henry v. Tinsley, 10 Cir., 344 F.2d 109, decided April 12, 1965. The claim of denial of equal protection because of the delay deserves no consideration because it is neither alleged nor shown that the Kansas Supreme Court has in any way discriminated against appellant in its procedural actions.

Affirmed.
#### Lucian Spence *v.*State Compensation Commissioner *et al.*

(No. 6895)

Submitted February 18, 1931.

Decided February 24, 1931.

*163
      *W. L. Taylor,*for appellant.

*II. B. Lee,*Attorney General, and *B. Dennis Bleed,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondents.

Maxwell, Judge:

Lncian Spence, claimant, was injured by a fall of slate July 31, 1929, while in the employ of the West Virginia Coal and Coke Company at Micco, Logan County. He was treated by Dr. Ernest R. Logan, who reported his injuries to the commissioner as “contusion of head, left shoulder, elbow and back,” and who discharged him from his care August 15, 1929. Claimant was allowed compensation for 1 2/7 weeks’ disability and was awarded a total of $16.55 in October, 1929, at which time the claim was declared closed. The efforts of claimant to secure an increase in compensation resulted in denial of the same by final order of the commissioner, May 16, 1930. Objection was duly made to that order and this appeal followed. There was no supplemental hearing as contemplated by the statute *(Enyart*v. *Commissioner,*109 W. Va. 613, 155 S. E. 913), but the commissioner makes no point of that fact.

The record discloses the important fact that from an examination of an X-ray of claimant’s chest taken at the Hatfield-Lawson Hospital October 11, 1929, four doctors pronounced that claimant had a fracture of the sternal end of the right clavicle. Nor is the report controverted except perhaps by Dr. Logan who stated in a letter to the commissioner that before he could say whether there was a fracture he would require a more definite picture. No reason is advanced for this condition except the injury of July 31, 1929; in fact, three of the four doctors state that such condition was due to his injury.

The injury to the clavicle was not known to the commissioner when he closed the claim October 2, 1929. It was brought to his attention subsequently, but no increase based thereon was allowed. From definite proof it appears that claimant before his injury was a strong, healthy man and that thereafter, because of his condition, he has been unable to return to work except for perhaps a few days.

*164The commissioner should have made an increased award. In a case such as at bar where there was an injury existing from the date of an accident, not discovered by the physicians or considered by the commissioner in fixing the original award, there is presented a matter going to the basis of claimant’s right within the meaning of section 43, chapter 71, Acts 1929, just as much as though it were a further disability arising from the injury subsequent to the date of the original determination of the matter by the commissioner. The latter sort of situation was dealt with in the case of *Hall*v. Commissioner, 109 W. Va. 230, 153 S. E. 510, and discussed in *Enyart*v. Commissioner, *supra.*

In the light of the foregoing, we reverse the order of May 16, 1930, and remand the case for determination by the commissioner of the amount of increased award due claimant under the statutory schedules.

*Reversed and remmded.*
Fourth Amendment to the Outside Directors Restricted Share Unit Plan



 Exhibit 10.89 
 FOURTH AMENDMENT 
 TO THE 

OUTSIDE DIRECTORS RESTRICTED SHARE UNIT PLAN 
 Background Information 
  

	A.	 State Auto Financial Corporation (the “Company”) previously adopted and maintains the Outside Directors Restricted Share Unit Plan (the
“Plan”) for the benefit of the Company’s Outside Directors. 


  

	B.	 The Company desires to amend the Plan’s vesting provisions effective November 1, 2010. 



 

	C.	 Section 7.1 of the Plan permits the Company’s Board of Directors to amend the Plan. 



Amendment of the Plan 
 The Plan is hereby amended as follows effective November 1, 2010: 
  

	1.	 Section 4.1 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 



4.1 Vesting. A Participant always will be one hundred percent (100%) vested in amounts credited to such
Participant’s Account prior to November 1, 2010. Effective for Awards granted on or after November 1, 2010, a Participant will be one hundred percent (100%) vested in amounts credited to such Participant’s Account
attributable to such Award upon the completion of six months of service as an Outside Director from the date of the Award. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Participant will be one hundred percent (100%) vested in the total amount credited to
such Participant’s Account upon the Participant’s death or Disability. 
  

	2.	 All other provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 



 

			
	STATE AUTO FINANCIAL CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ J A Yano

		
	Its:	 	 Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel

		
	DATE:	 	 11/9/10
EXHIBIT 99.1




                            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 Quarterly Report of Ridgefield Industries Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jianjun Zhang, President 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 result of operations of
        the Company.



/s/ Jianjun Zhang
------------------
Jianjun Zhang
President

August 6, 2003
Second Department,

January, 2001

(January 8, 2001)

#### Phillip Amato, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v Kimon Psaltakis, Respondent.

[719 NYS2d 593]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff Phillip Amato appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated February 28, 2000, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by him on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the appellant failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut *440the defendant’s initial showing that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant dismissing so much of the complaint as was asserted on behalf of the appellant *(see, Licari v Elliott,*57 NY2d 230). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket** Docket Number: F AA- 2013 - 0623 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM109AD

AFM CSP A- 012, R61 --- 4/2/13 AFM CSP B - 012, R11 --- 2/14/13 AFM CSP C - 012, R7 --- 2/14/13

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008