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

                                                                      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 Quarterly Report of Yosemite Mortgage Fund II,
LLC (the "Issuer") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof, I,
Steven M. Pontes, General Manager of MFP Management LLC, the Manager of the
Issuer, and the equivalent of the chief executive officer and chief financial
officer of the Issuer, certify that the Report on Form 10-QSB containing the
financial statements of the Issuer fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ( 15U.S.C. 78m(a)
or 78o(d) and that information contained in the periodic report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Issuer.

Date: May 17, 2004

                              /S/ STEVEN M. PONTES
                              --------------------
                              [Signature]       General Manager
                                                MFP Management LLC, Manager
                              [Title]           Principal Executive Officer
                                                Principal Financial Officer
Summary of Directors' Compensation.



 Exhibit 10.17 
 Summary of Directors’ Compensation 
 In 2009,
non-employee directors were paid $17,000 per quarter ($68,000 per year). In addition, in accordance with the 2008 Director Stock Plan, non-employee directors received, for service as a director, shares of Albemarle common stock equal to the amount
of the annual retainer fee divided by the closing price per share of Albemarle common stock on the Annual Meeting date, which was $25.35. Due to a 2,000 share grant limitation per director per year dictated by the 2008 Director Stock Plan, and due
to the decreased price per share on the date of the 2009 Annual Meeting, the number of shares issued did not amount to the total stock compensation due each non-employee director for 2009. As such, we granted each non-employee director a one-time
additional discretionary allocation of 700 phantom shares into each of their deferred compensation stock accounts. 
 Non-employee directors also received an additional amount based on their committee service. Audit Committee members received $2,250 per quarter ($9,000 per year), and the Chairman of the Audit Committee received an additional $2,250 per
quarter ($9,000 per year). Executive Compensation Committee members received $2,250 per quarter ($9,000 per year), and the Chairman of the Executive Compensation Committee received an additional $2,250 per quarter ($9,000 per year). Nominating and
Governance Committee members received $1,250 per quarter ($5,000 per year), and the Chairman of the Nominating and Governance Committee received an additional $750 per quarter ($3,000 per year). Health, Safety and Environment members received $1,250
per quarter ($5,000 per year), and the Chairman of the Safety, Health, and Environment Committee received an additional $750 per quarter ($3,000 per year). Our Lead Independent Director received $50,000 in 2009 in lieu of committee fees. In
addition, we reimbursed each of our non-employee directors for reasonable travel expenses incurred in connection with attending Board and Board Committee meetings, and we matched up to $2,500 for director charitable giving. Employee members of the
Board of Directors were not paid separately for service on the Board. 
  

 95
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cesar Alfonso, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 561]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Colleen McMahon, J.), rendered April 2, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second and third degrees and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 9 years to life, 4V2 to 9 years and 1 year, unanimously affirmed.

The. verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The totality of the evi*385dence, including the duration of defendant’s presence in the apartment, warranted the conclusion that defendant was in constructive possession of the contraband found therein and was not present as a buyer or visitor *(see, People v Bundy,*90 NY2d 918; *People v Tirado,*38 NY2d 955). The evidence also warranted the conclusion that the contraband was in “open view” and that the presumption contained in Penal Law § 220.25 (2) was applicable.

The People’s expert witness, who testified about the general practices of persons selling drugs from apartments, provided helpful information for the jury and did not express an opinion on the ultimate issue in the case *(see, People v Santiago,*243 AD2d 328, *lv denied*91 NY2d 879).

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Williams, J. P., Andrias, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

GOJET AIRLINES LLC 

(VD Gear Pins) 

FAA Docket No. CP10CE0003 

DMS No. FAA-2010-0025 

Judge: ALJ Richard C. Goodwin 

: -I 

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 

To: David Kessler, Esq. 

FAA/Central Region 

Office of Regional Counsel 

901 Locust, Room 506 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2641 

Please take notice that at 1:00 p.m. on June 11, 2010 at the St. Louis Flight 

Standards District Office, 10801 Pear Tree Lane, Suite 200, St. Ann, Missouri 

Respondent's Counsel will take the oral deposition of Dean Adam, before a Notary 

Public or before some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said 

deposition will be recorded by stenographic means and will continue until such time as it 

is complete. 

Dated: May ^^,201 0 

David J. A. Hayes llrTEsq. 

Vice President & General Counsel 

Trans States Holdings, Inc. 

11495 Navaid Road 

Bridgeton, Missouri 63044 

(314)222-4316 

(314)222-4311 (fax) 

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT 

GOJET AIRLINES LLC 
; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

!l 

I I DAVID J.A. HAYES, III hereby certify that on May i^ , 2010, I served the 

;f foregoing Notice of Deposition on the following parties' counsel or designated 

ij representative at the address indicated via facsimile and U.S. Mail, all postage prepaid. 

Original & One Copy: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

; 1 Washington, DC 20591 

S i Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

One Copy: 

David B. Kessler 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Central Region, ACE-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

DOT Building 

901 Locust, Room 506 

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin. ALJ 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

JUOLLi \f)ilfX\dU
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 23

- 00149

- CV

Emilia Gamez v. Domus Management, LLC, or in the alternative, Domus Management, LLC d/b/a



### “ Paychex PEO V LLC 

### ”

On Appeal from the 105th District Court of Kleberg County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 19

- 73 6

- D

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We f urther order this decision certified below for observance.
November 9 , 2023
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Jacinta Sit, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Oxford Technologies, Inc. on the Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009, 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Oxford Technologies, Inc.







|                     |  |     |  |                                                              
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 6, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/Jacinta Sit                                               
|                     |  |     |  | Jacinta Sit, President                                       
|                     |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 21


                       Subsidiaries of the Registrant

                              December 31, 2002

                              CNB BANCORP, INC.
                     10-24 N. Main Street, P.O. Box 873
                        Gloversville, New York 12078
                                      |
                                      |
                                      |
                                      |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY                 HATHAWAY AGENCY, INC.
 10-24 N. Main Street, P.O. Box 873                     7 Church Street
    Gloversville, New York 12078                 Gloversville, New York 12078
            (100% Owned)                                 (100% Owned)
                  |
                  |
                  |
                  |
            CNB REIT CORP.
 10-24 N. Main Street, P.O. Box 873
    Gloversville, New York 12078
            (100% Owned)
The STATE, Respondent, v. Demario Monte THOMPSON, Petitioner.

Appellate Case No. 2017-001992 Opinion No. 27878

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard March 28, 2019 Filed April 3, 2019

Appellate Defender Joanna K. Delany, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, both of Columbia, and Solicitor Douglas A. Barfield, Jr., of Kershaw, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:

**325We granted Demario Thompson's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in **326*State v. Thompson* , 420 S.C. 386, 803 S.E.2d 44 (Ct. App. 2017). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.

**DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED** .

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.
consultagmt_tr.htm


     

    
 

    
      Bontan
Corporation Inc.

      47
Avenue Road, Suite 200

      Toronto,
Ontario, Canada M5R 2G3

      T:  416-929-1806

      F:  416-929-6612


       

       

       

       

      CONTRACT between
TERENCE ROBINSON & BONTAN CORPORATION INC.

    

    
       

       

      
 

    

     

    
 

    
      
        
        

      

      
        
        

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    August 4,
2009

    


    Mr.
Terence Robinson

    68
Admiral Road

    Toronto,
ON

    M5R
2L5

    


    


    


    Dear Mr.
Robinson:

    


    


    Further
to our discussions, I am pleased to inform you that the Board of Directors have
agreed to renew the Consulting  Agreement dated April 1, 2003 with you
for a further period of five years up to March 31, 2014. This extension is
effective from April 1, 2009.

    


    All the
terms of the consulting contract remain same as the ones described in the
Agreement dated April 1, 2003 except for the following:

     

    You fee
will be CDN$10,000 per month plus GST. This may be paid in cash or in common
shares of the Company as may be mutually agreed from time to time.

    


    


    If you
agree with the above, please sign a copy of this letter and return to us for our
record.

    


    


    Sincerely,

    


    


        /S/ Kam Shah   

    


    Kam
Shah

    Chief
Executive and Financial Officer

    


    


    


    I accept
and agree with the contents of this letter.

    
 

        /S/ Terence
Robinson   


    


    Terence
Robinson

    


    



    
      
         


      

      
        1
Exhibit  32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350  (Furnished, Not Filed)





In connection with the Annual  Report of Black Warrior Wireline Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year  ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission  on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald Whitter, 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:





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.





|/s/ Ronald    Whitter      | 
|-------------------------- | 
|                           | 
|Ronald    Whitter          | 
|Chief    Financial Officer | 
|April 12,    2005          | 




---
#### Oliver Harney et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Tombstone Pizza Corp. et al., Appellants-Respondents.

[719 NYS2d 704]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated October 13, 1999, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Oliver Harney did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and the plaintiffs cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied their motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying the cross motion and substituting therefore a provision granting the cross motion; as so modified the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendants, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the injured plaintiff, Oliver Harney, did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law § 5102 (d), thereby shifting the burden to the plaintiffs to produce objective proof of a serious injury *(see, Grossman v Wright,*268 AD2d 79; *Fernandez v Shields,*223 AD2d 666). The affirmation of the plaintiffs’ medical expert was insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment. The expert improperly relied on an unsworn magnetic resonance image report prepared by another physician *(see, Williams v Hughes,*256 AD2d 461; *Merisca v Alford,*243 AD2d 613, 614; *Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental,*216 AD2d 266, 267) and failed to indicate what objective tests were used to quantify the results contained therein *(see, Grossman v Wright,*supra; *Russell v City of Mount Vernon,*256 AD2d 454, 455; *Merisca v Alford,*supra; *Lincoln v Johnson,*225 AD2d 593; *Philpotts v Petrovic,*160 AD2d 856, 857). Furthermore, the expert stated conclusions that were unsupported by objective proof and were tailored to meet statutory requirements *(see, Waldman v Dong Kook Chang,*175 AD2d 204; *Lopez v Senatore,*65 NY2d 1017, 1019; *Antorino v Mordes,*202 AD2d 528, 529). The injured plaintiff’s self-serving assertions that he was unable to perform his customary daily activities for 90 out of the 180 days immediately following the accident were insuf*610ficient to raise any triable issues of fact *(see, Rum v Pam Transp.,*250 AD2d 751; *Davis v New York City Tr. Auth.,*248 AD2d 428; *Yagliyan v Gun Shik Yang,*241 AD2d 518; *Phillips v Costa,*160 AD2d 855, 856), as were his subjective complaints of pain *(see, Castano v Synergy Gas Corp.,*250 AD2d 640; *Lincoln v Johnson, supra,*at 593; *Philpotts v Petrovic, supra,*at 857; *Phillips v Costa, supra).*O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
UtahState Un ive rsity

_._","",,_~MOA8 EDUCATION CENTER

August 20, 2013

Mr. Dennis DeVany

Chief of the EAS Division

Aviation Analysis

1200 New Jersey Ave. S.L

Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. DeVany,

Please accept my unreserved endorsement for the Sky West essential air service proposal for the Canyonlands

Field Airport at Moab, Utah. It is very important to Moab's future economic and social development that Sky

West be awarded this contract. The existing service provided by Great Lakes Airlines has been notoriously

inconsistent with inadequate capacity and service that is limited to a region that is peripheral to Moab's needs.

Utah State University's regional campus based in Moab continues to grow and develop with a new campus

facility scheduled for development in the near future. The USU campus emphasizes programs that take

advantage of Moab's unique surroundings, including recreation resource management, geology, natural

resources, and hospitality and tourism management. It is important to the development of the University that

we have consistent air service, with direct ties to the Salt Lake City International Airport, that can support a

much higher capacity. The University anticipates an important role for air travel to Moab for students, faculty,

and attendees at educational conferences and other University events and functions. USU has strong

partnerships in the community in the areas of tourism and recreation management, and sees the transition of

air service to Sky West as a critical step forward in meeting community development goals in these important

areas.

It is my sincere judgment that the Sky West proposal is much better suited to meet the needs of the Moab

community. Please give full consideration to the Sky West proposal.

Sincerely,

,/\

~

~v----

Steven R. Hawks, EdO, MBA

Dean and Executive Director, Moab and Southwest Region

Regional Campuses & Distance Education

Utah State University

125 W. 200 S.

Moab, UT 34532

435-259-7432

steve.hawks@usu.edu
#### Minnie Oultram Woodford *v.*Walter L. Woodford

(No. 6939)

Submitted September 29, 1931.

Decided October 6, 1931.

*Wm. T. George,*for appellant.

*H. J. Poling,*for appellee.

LlTZ, PRESIDENT :

Plaintiff, Minnie Oultram Woodford, instituted her suit April 15, 1929, against defendant, Walter L. Woodford, for a divorce from bed and board and alimony, upon the grounds of cruelty and desertion. He answered, by way of defense, that he had already obtained an absolute divorce from her, in *117the state of Ohio (upon, constructive notice for desertion of more than three years), and filed an alleged copy (unauthenticated) of the Ohio decree. The trial court, accepting the alleged decree as a bar to this suit, set aside a previous order allowing temporary alimony and suit money, and dismissed the bill.

Several years after their marriage at Wheeling, West Virginia, in 1919, plaintiff and defendant went to Akron, Ohio, but plaintiff, because of alleged cruelty of her husband, soon returned to Belington, West Virginia, where she has since resided in a house owned by defendant. Defendant remained in Akron, but in 1927, during Christmas holidays, visited his wife in Belington, and in 1928, at Yuletide, she visited him in Akron. She says they cohabited as husband and wife upon each occasion. He denies that they did so in 1928. Until within a few weeks of the institution of the alleged suit in Ohio, he sent her clothing and sums of money for other necessaries from time to time, while she regularly laundried and returned to him his wearing apparel which he mailed to her every two weeks.

Alleged copies (unauthenticated) of process in the Ohio, suit and proof of publication thereof were offered in evidence. The purported copy of process, dated April 6,1929, recites that “the cause may be heard and decided at any time after the expiration of six weeks from the service of this writ.” The Ohio Code (chapter 3, section 11985) provides that in a suit for divorce “the cause may be heard and decided after the expiration of six weeks from the service of summons, or the first publication of notice. ’ ’ The unauthentieated copy of proof of publication discloses that the first publication was made April 9,1929. The alleged decree purports to have been entered May 17, 1929, less than six weeks from the first publication of process. Waiving for the moment defendant’s failure to produce a complete record of the alleged Ohio divorce proceedings and the unauthenticity of the parts presented, the decree is nevertheless invalid as having been rendered prematurely.

The decree, complained of, is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed md remanded.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                            5287
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     5148
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       3399
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 14474
<PP&E>                                           75083
<DEPRECIATION>                                   15744
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   75891
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             8676
<BONDS>                                          27924
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         38651
<OTHER-SE>                                         390
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     75891
<SALES>                                          99021
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 99021
<CGS>                                            89902
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    89902
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  4297
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                4916
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (94)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (94)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  56488
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     56394
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Bureau of Labor Statistics

**Series Id: Series title:**  **Labor force status: Type of data:**  **Age: Years:**  **Year Qtr1**  **Qtr2 Qtr3**  **Qtr4 Annual**  **2011** 4583 Not in labor force Number in thousands 50 to 54 years 2011 to 2011 

### Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey **Original Data Value**LNU05024937Q **Not Seasonally Adjusted** (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, 50-54 yrs.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 16, 2011 (02:09:36 PM)