alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATIONS
**Certification of Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer**
I, D. J. Paul E. Cowan, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Inveresk Research Group, Inc.(the “registrant”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operation, and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchcontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors:
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.      Date: May 7, 2004 /s/ D. J. Paul E. Cowan       Chief Financial Officer   and Treasurer
-31-
#### Dee Frustace et al., Respondents, v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 880]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), dated June 9, 2000, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In response to the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff could only speculate as to the cause of her fall *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562; *Hoff v Trump Castle Assocs.,*243 AD2d 698; *Garvin v Rosenberg,*204 AD2d 388). S. Miller, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSBof East Kansas Agri-Energy, LLC (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, William Pracht, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.             TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 
|   |  /s/ William Pracht              |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | Dated: November 14, 2005         |

 

----
Dolan Chemical Laboratory

4001 Bixby Road

Groveport, OH 43125

T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221

F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168

http://aepenv/labs

Water Analysis

Form REP-70

Rev. 0, 4/20

Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 1/17/2013

Sample Number: 130120-001 Date Collected: 01/09/2013 08:00 Date Received: 1/9/2013

1st Stage Feed

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 363 ug/L 0.50 0.20 DPC 01/16/2013 12:14 EPA 200.8

Sample Number: 130120-002 Date Collected: 01/09/2013 08:00 Date Received: 1/9/2013

2nd Stage Feed

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 127 ug/L 0.50 0.20 DPC 01/16/2013 12:18 EPA 200.8

Sample Number: 130120-003 Date Collected: 01/09/2013 08:00 Date Received: 1/9/2013

Bioreactor Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 3.0 ug/L 0.50 0.20 DPC 01/16/2013 12:23 EPA 200.8

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN 

APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, 

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II

Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224

Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 130120 Page 1 of 1
## Flight Cycles LNG LNG Type Fuel tlog File Missn ID Aircraft Cycle ID PreVoltPostVolt Flight Number Date T/O
Dorothy RISSELL, Appellant, v. Michael RISSELL, Respondent.

No. ED 106199

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: September 4, 2018

FOR APPELLANTS: Susan Kreher Roach, 8000 Maryland Avenue, Suite 760, Clayton, Missouri 63105.

FOR RESPONDENTS: Deborah C.M. Henry, 130 South Bemiston Avenue, Suite 200, St. Louis, Missouri 63105.

Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Dorothy Rissell appeals the trial court's modification judgment that reduced her former husband Michael Rissell's maintenance. Ms. Rissell contends that the judgment was entered against the weight of the evidence, which she asserts showed that Mr. Rissell failed to demonstrate a substantial and continuing change in circumstances. She also argues that the trial court erred by denying without an evidentiary hearing her motion to reopen the evidence.

We affirm. Because an extended opinion would have no precedential value, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting *126forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Amendment No. One to Canadian Performance-Based Restricted Stock Unit Award Agmt



 Exhibit 10.51 
 Amendment Number One 
 Canadian Restricted Stock
Unit Award Agreement 
 Under The Alliance Data Systems Corporation 
 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan 
 THIS AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE (“Amendment”) to the Canadian Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement (the “Award Agreement”) Under The Alliance Data Systems Corporation 2005 Long-Term
Incentive Plan, as amended, is made as of the 1st day of
October, 2009. 
 The Board of Directors (the “Board”) and the Compensation Committee of the Board of Alliance Data
Systems Corporation, at meetings held on September 23 and 24, 2009, approved an amendment to the Award Agreement to allow for settlement of awards in cash, as follows: 
 1. Section 3(a) is amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 
 (a) Subject to Sections 2 and 4 of this Award Agreement, the Award will vest upon the Board’s certification of attainment of the
Performance Goals set forth in Section 3(b) below; provided, that, the Participant is then employed by the Company or an Affiliate. As soon as practicable after the Award vests and consistent with Section 409A of the Code, payment shall be
made in cash (based upon the Fair Market Value of the Stock on the day all restrictions lapse). Any cash payment shall be net of the amount withheld pursuant to Section 11. 
 2. Section 8 is amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 
 8. Compliance with Law. Notwithstanding any of the provisions hereof, the Company will not be obligated to make a cash payment
to the Participant hereunder, if the cash payment shall constitute a violation by the Participant or the Company of any provisions of any law or regulation of any governmental authority. Any determination in this connection by the Committee shall be
final, binding and conclusive. The Company shall in no event be obliged to register any securities pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (as now in effect or as hereafter amended) or to take any other affirmative action in order to cause the
issuance or transfer of Stock pursuant thereto to comply with any law or regulation of any governmental authority. 
 3.
Section 11 is amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 
 11. Taxes and Share Withholding. At such
time as the Participant has taxable income in connection with an Award (a “Taxable Event”), the Company will require the withholding of a portion of any cash payment to the Participant equal to, but not in excess of an amount equal to, the
minimum federal, state and local income taxes and other amounts as may be required by law to be withheld by the Company in connection with the Taxable Event. 







 4. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment and any prior amendments, all other terms
and provisions of the Award Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. To the extent that there is a conflict between this Amendment and the Award Agreement, the provisions of this Amendment shall prevail. All capitalized terms not defined
herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Award Agreement.
<SEQUENCE>3
<FILENAME>c03925exv32.txt
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 32

      CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
        OFFICER 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, Peter Lamoureux,
President of Everest Asset Management, Inc. , the general partner of the Everest
Fund, L.P. (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/ Peter Lamoureux
                                            ------------------------------------
                                        Name: Peter Lamoureux
                                        Title: Director, President and Treasurer
                                        October 26, 2009
exhibit10_1.htm









Exhibit 10.1


 


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW


Washington, D.C. 20220


 


                                                          March 9, 2011


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


Reference is made to that certain letter agreement (the “Repurchase Letter Agreement”), dated as of the date set forth on Schedule A hereto, between the United States Department of the Treasury (the “Investor”) and the company set forth on Schedule A hereto (the “Company”).  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Repurchase Letter Agreement.


 


As documented by the Repurchase Letter Agreement, the Company has completed the repurchase from the Investor of all of the Preferred Shares issued to the Investor pursuant to the Securities Purchase Agreement.  Following such time, the Company delivered a Warrant Repurchase Notice dated as of the date set forth on Schedule A hereto to the Investor.  In connection with the consummation, on the date hereof, of the repurchase of the Warrant by the Company from the Investor, as contemplated by the Warrant Repurchase Notice and Section 4.9 of the Securities Purchase Agreement:


 


 



	 	(a) 	The Company hereby acknowledges receipt from the Investor of the Warrant; and 






 



	 	(b) 	The Investor hereby acknowledges receipt from the Company of a wire transfer to the account of the Investor set forth on Schedule A hereto in immediately available funds of the aggregate purchase price set forth on Schedule A hereto, representing payment in full for the Warrant, determined in accordance with Section 4.9 of the Securities Purchase Agreement.





 




This letter agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the federal law of the United States if and to the extent such law is applicable, and otherwise in accordance with the laws of the State of New York applicable to contracts made and to be performed entirely within such State.


 


This letter agreement may be executed in any number of separate counterparts, each such counterpart being deemed to be an original instrument, and all such counterparts will together constitute the same agreement.  Executed signature pages to this letter agreement may be delivered by facsimile and such facsimiles will be deemed sufficient as if actual signature pages had been delivered.


 


 




  





  











  






 


 


In witness whereof, the parties have duly executed this letter agreement as of the date first written above.


 


 



	 	UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
	 	 
	 	By: /s/ TIMOTHY G. MASSAD                                             
	 	Name: Timothy G. Massad
	 	Title:   Acting Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	COMPANY:  1st Source Corporation
	 	 
	 	By: /s/ CHRISTOPHER J. MUPRHY III                                 
	 	Name: Christopher J. Murphy III
	 	Title:   Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Lee CRUZ, Claimant/Appellant, v. DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Respondent.

No. ED 105993

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: May 15, 2018

Lee Cruz, Acting pro se, 918 Meramec Grove Court, Ballwin, MO 63021, for Plaintiff/Appellant.

Bart A. Matanic, 421 E. Dunklin Street, P.O. Box 59, Jefferson City, MO 65104, for Defendant/Respondent.

Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Lee Cruz appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's (Commission) decision finding he was ineligible for unemployment benefits. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and record on appeal and conclude the Commission's decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence. Section 288.210 RSMo Supp. 2012. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm *605the decision pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 32.1




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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dahua Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Yonglin Du, President
and Chief Executive Officer, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to 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.



Dated: May 16, 2006


/s/ Yonglin Du
---------------
Yonglin Du
President and Chief Executive Officer
CHARLESTON.

#### Harry W. Nicola *v.*A. R. Williams

(No. C. C. 395)

Submitted January 12, 1927.

Decided January 18, 1927.

Appeal and *Error*— Dismissal *in Circuit Court on Motion to Quash Summons and Return May Not be Reviewed by Cer- . tificate of Trial Court (Code, c. 135,*§ *1).*

When a ease has been dismissed in the circuit court on motion to quash the summons and return, this court has no jurisdiction under section 1 of chapter 135 of the Code to review by certificate of the trial court the questions arising on said motion.

(Appeal and Error, 3 C. J. § 934a [Anno].)

(Nora: Parenthetical references by Editors, C. J. — Cyc. Not part of syllabi.)

Certified Case from Circuit Court, Preston County.

Action by Harry W. Nicola against A. R. Williams. On motion the trial court quashed the summons and return, and certifies the cause.

*Dismissed.*

*James C. Holt,*for plaintiff.

*F. F. Parmclc,*for defendant.

Miller, Judge:

In this action of trespass on the case, counsel for the defendant appeared specially and moved the trial court to quash the summons and return. The order of the court ruling on the motion recites: “It is therefore considered by the Court that said summons be quashed, and said suit dismissed, to which action of the Court the plaintiff, by his attorney, excepts ; and the Court thereupon, upon its own motion, certifies this cause to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, for its decision upon the sufficiency of said summons and return. ’ ’

The order of the circuit court dismissing the action is a final one; and this court has no jurisdiction except by writ of error. “A final order is not reviewable by this court upon *30joint application of the parties, or by the court’s own motion, under the latter part of section 1, chapter 135 of the Code.” *State*v. *Crockett,*94 W. Va. 423; *Heater*v. *Lloyd,*85 W. Va. 570; *Gas Company*v. *Shreve,*90 W. Va. 277; *Marks*v. *Mitchell,*Id. 702; *Saffel v. Woodyard,*Id. 747; *Lee*v. *City of Elkins,*97 W. Va. 183.

The case will therefore be dismissed for want of jurisdiction of this court to consider the questions presented by the circuit court’s certificate.

*Dismissed.*
1 From: Bahner, Mark A.

Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 12:42 PM

To: Moore, Chris N.

Subject: RE: Alcoa North and South Plants (RTI #195 and 195B) latitudes and longitudes

Hi Chris,

Aha! That’s great to know, because we were thinking it was “Degrees, decimal minutes” (the third choice).

This should completely resolve the issue.

No need to apologize for the confusion. Now that we’re tuned into it, I think it explains many of the responses that we got. So you may have helped us on some other plants.

I don’t plan to bother you on Monday. I’ll let you know by email if everything is completely resolved today, as I expect it to be.

Have a nice weekend,

Mark

Mark A. Bahner

RTI, International

P.O. Box 12194, 3040 Cornwallis Road

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

- 2194



### Phone: (919) 541 -6016

Fax: (919) 541 -7155

Email: bahner@rti.org

Internet: http://www.rti.org

From: Moore, Chris N. [mailto:Chris.Moore@alcoa.com]

Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 12:27 PM

To: Bahner, Mark A.

Subject: RE: Alcoa North and South Plants (RTI # 195 and 195B) latitudes and longitudes2 Yes. Looks like the setting is “degrees, minutes, seconds” in my Google Earth. Hope this resolves the issue. Sorry for the co nfusion.

Chris

From: Bahner, Mark A. [mailto:bahner@rti.org]

Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 12:23 PM

To: Moore, Chris N.

Subject: RE: Alcoa North and South Plants (RTI #195 and 195B) latitudes and longitudes

Hi Chris,

I can call on Monday, but I’m expecting/hoping that we at RTI will have this matter completely resolved before Monday at 10 a m.

I’m virtually certain that you filled out your spreadsheets with Google Earth on the setting of showing latitudes and longitu des in degrees and decimal minutes. In contrast, we were expecting latitudes and

longitudes in decimal degrees (the top option of t he screen capture below).

Now that we’re pretty sure we know what you did, we’ll just duplicate what you did, and then convert the latitudes and longit udes from being in degrees and decimal minutes to decimal degrees. (By simply

moving the radio button up to the top choice.)

So I’ll call on Monday at 10 am, but I’m expecting it to be a 2

- minute call, because I’m expecting we’ll be straightened out.

Sorry about the confusion,

Mark34 Mark A. Bahner

RTI, International

P.O. Box 12194, 3040 Cornwallis Road

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

- 2194



### Phone: (919) 541

- 6016

Fax: (919) 541

- 7155

Email: bahner@rti.org

Inte rnet: http://www.rti.org

From: Moore, Chris N. [mailto:Chris.Moore@alcoa.com]

Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 11:35 AM

To: Bahner, Mark A.

Subject: RE: Alcoa North and South Plants (RTI #195 and 195B) latitud es and longitudes

Can we talk Monday at 10 AM?

From: Bahner, Mark A. [mailto:bahner@rti.org]

Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 4:51 PM

To: Moore, Chris N.

Subject: RE: Alcoa North and South Plants (RTI #195 and 195B) latitudes and longitudes

Hi Chris,

Yes , the minus sign matters. But if you had the same latitude, but with a positive longitude, it would put you in southwestern C hina. J

We’re not that far off. J

Best wishes,

Mark
WALKER v. K&W CAFETERIAS, et al.

99PA19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 23, 2019

Vernon Sumwalt, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Walker, Gwendolyn Dianette (Widow of Robert Lee Walker ).

Mark T. Sumwalt, Attorney at Law, Charlotte.

Lauren H. Walker, Attorney at Law.

Roy G. Pettigrew, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for K&W Cafeterias, et al.

Carl Newman, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for K&W Cafeterias, et al

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellee Brief filed on the 22nd of July 2019 by Defendants:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd of July 2019."

Defendants shall have up to and including the 11th day of September 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.