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



                            CERTIFICATION
         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
              SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of Norton Industries Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 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, to my knowledge, 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.


Date: July 22, 2004

/s/ Jianjun Zhang
---------------------------------------------
Jianjun Zhang, President
(principal executive officer and principal
 accounting officer)
Kendale WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. MISSOURI HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, Respondent.

WD 80892

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Order filed: July 17, 2018

Mark C. Prugh, Waynesville, for Appellant

Gary J. Holtmeyer, Jr., for Respondent

Before Division Three: Victor C. Howard, Presiding Judge, Cynthia L. Martin, Judge and Gary D. Witt, Judge

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM:

Kendale Williams appeals the judgment of the Boone County Court refusing to allow amendment of a petition and dismissing the petition with prejudice. He claims on appeal that the trial court erred in finding that the amended petition would not relate back to the original petition. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
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 Supatcha Resources Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ending February 28, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steve Talley,
President, Principal Executive Officer and Director 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
      Supatcha Resources Inc.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




SUPATCHA
RESOURCES, INC.




By:
                /s/
      Steve TalleySteve
      TalleyPresident,
      Principal Executive Officer,DirectorDate:
                July
      13, 2010
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael MCAFEE, Appellant.

No. ED 105129

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: February 6, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 22, 2018 Application for Transfer Denied May 22, 2018

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: Amy M. Bartholow, 1000 West Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203.

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Daniel N. McPherson, Asst. Attorney General, P. O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0899.

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

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM.

*879Michael McAfee appeals from the judgment entered on his convictions after a jury trial for first-degree murder and armed criminal action. There was no error in the admission of evidence or the denial of the motion for mistrial. We affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
Grafe, Jerome (DEP) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Ryan Murphy [rmurphy@nadaaa.com] 

Monday, September 24, 2012 11:04 AM 

Grafe, Jerome (DEP); Fichter, Katherine (DOT) 

Blue/Red Line Connection 

Dear Commissioner Kimmell, 

Please support the final design and construction of the Red-Blue Connector between Bowdoin and Charles Street stations 

in Boston. My wife and I purchased a house in East Boston because of the public transit availability. I understood that the 

plans to connect the Red and Blue lines were real and linked to mitigation agreements in place. 

It is unfair to dissolve this project upon completion of the Big Dig. Our neighborhood is directly affected by 

automobile traffic entering and exiting the tunnels connecting Boston with the north shore. The promise of 

connecting the ONLY break in continuous service on the T (red and blue transfer) is one sure way to positively 

impact my community. A seamless subway system would likely entice a percentage of the population 

commuting by car every day, cutting down on the amount of noise and exhaust that my neighborhood is forced 

to absorb. 

Thank you for your time. 

Sincerely, 

Ryan Murphy 

Coleridge St, Boston 

NAIM A A | I 'V.ci VVASIMNOTON ST NO .: BOS i ON MA 02118 | T 617.442.6232 | NADAAA.COM 

l lir mfo,motion contained in this electronic mail message (including any attachments) is confidential information that may be covered by the Idectronic Coromunicuttons Privacy 

Art, 18 1 i.SC Sections 310-2531, intended only Ibi the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended 

recipient, von die hereby notified 'Jut any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or the taking of any action based on it. is strictly prohibited. Ifyou have 

received this communication in en or, please immediately notify me and delete the original message. 

1
##### 



EXHIBIT 12 BAY VIEW CAPITAL CORPORATION
COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS (LOSS) TO FIXED CHARGES For the Three
    
    For the Nine
    
    For the Three
    
    For the NineMonths Ended
    
    Months Ended
    
    Months Ended
    
    Months EndedDecember 31,
    
    September 30,
    
    December 31,
    
    September 30,2003
    
    2003
    
    2002
    
    2002Going Concern
    
    Liquidation
    
    Liquidation
    
    Going ConcernBasis
    
    Basis
    
    Basis
    
    BasisEarnings:Earnings (loss) before income tax expense (benefit)
    
    
    (857
    )
    
    
    (10,590
    )
    
    
    (8,885
    )
    
    
    253,453Add:Interest on advances and other borrowings
    
    
    3,612
    
    
    
    7,708
    
    
    
    5,724
    
    
    
    23,432Interest component of rental expense
    
    
    74
    
    
    
    160
    
    
    
    227
    
    
    
    1,602Earnings (loss) before fixed charges excluding
interest on customer deposits
    
    
    2,829
    
    
    
    (2,722
    )
    
    
    (2,934
    )
    
    
    278,487Interest on customer deposits
    
    
    
    
    
    
    703
    
    
    
    7,019
    
    
    
    44,509Earnings before fixed charges
    
    
    2,829
    
    
    
    (2,019
    )
    
    
    4,085
    
    
    
    322,996Fixed Charges:Interest on advances and other borrowings
    
    
    3,612
    
    
    
    7,708
    
    
    
    5,724
    
    
    
    23,432Interest component of rental expense
    
    
    74
    
    
    
    160
    
    
    
    227
    
    
    
    1,602Fixed charges excluding interest on
customer deposits
    
    
    3,686
    
    
    
    7,868
    
    
    
    5,951
    
    
    
    25,034Interest on customer deposits
    
    
    
    
    
    
    703
    
    
    
    7,019
    
    
    
    44,509Total fixed charges
    
    
    3,686
    
    
    
    8,571
    
    
    
    12,970
    
    
    
    69,543Ratio of earnings (loss) to fixed charges including interest
on customer deposits
    
    
    0.77
    
    
    
    (0.24
    )
    
    
    0.31
    
    
    
    4.64Ratio of earnings (loss) to fixed charges excluding interest
on customer deposits
    
    
    0.77
    
    
    
    (0.35
    )
    
    
    (0.49
    )
    
    
    11.12
|Exhibit 32.2
|------------



|CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer of Belrose Capital Fund LLC (the Fund), that based on his knowledge:

|(a) | the Quarterly Report of the Fund on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund for such period.                                       
|   



|Date: August 9, 2007
|--------------------



| | /s/ Andrew C. Frenette
Andrew C. Frenette
Chief Financial Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Derek Josey, Appellant.

[771 NYS2d 904]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered September 6, 2001, convicting him of assault in the second degree and escape in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court committed re*399versible error by holding a preliminary *Sandoval*hearing *(see People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371 [1974]) in his absence. However, this claim is without merit since the defendant forfeited his right to be present at such proceeding by his deliberate refusal to appear *(see People v Sanchez,*65 NY2d 436 [1985]). This claim is also without merit since the trial court modified its *Sandoval*ruling after conducting a formal *Sandoval*hearing upon the defendant’s return to the courtroom.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of his assault conviction is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]), and in any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), is without merit. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s challenge to the sentence enhancement provisions for discretionary persistent felony offenders set forth in Penal Law § 70.10 and CPL 400.20 is also unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Rosen,*96 NY2d 329 [2001], *cert denied*534 US 899 [2001]). S. Miller, J.P., Luciano, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Annual Performance Incentive Plan for 2010



 EXHIBIT 10(e)(20) 
 Annual Performance Incentive Plan for 2010 (“2010 APIP”) 
 Under
the 2010 APIP, executive officers of the Company are eligible to receive performance related cash payments. Payments are, in general, only made if performance objectives established by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the
“Committee”) are met. 
 The Committee approved incentive opportunities for 2010, expressed as a percentage of base salary for each
participating officer. Certain additional goals were established for some officers based on business unit goals. The Committee also established overall threshold, target and maximum measures of performance for the 2010 APIP. The performance measures
and weightings are adjusted Earnings per Share (weighted at 40%), Cash Flow from Operations (weighted at 40%) and Pro Forma Revenue Growth (adjusted to exclude the impact of changes in the translation of foreign currencies into U.S. dollars)
(weighted at 20%). 
 Individual awards will be subject to the review and approval of the Committee following the completion of the 2010 fiscal year, with
payment to be made within the first four months of 2011.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5422 

To amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act to make permanent the moratorium 

on taxes on internet access and on multiple and discriminatory taxes 

on electronic commerce. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2006 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER (for himself, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. CANNON, 

Mr. CHABOT, and Mr. GOODLATTE) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act to make permanent 

the moratorium on taxes on internet access and on multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS. 

4 (a) PERMANENT MORATORIUM.—Section 1101(a) of 

5 the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is 

6 amended by striking ‘‘during the period beginning Novem7 ber 1, 2003, and ending November 1, 2007’’. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5422 IH 

1 (b) GRANDFATHERED AUTHORITIES.—Section 

2 1104(a)(2) of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 

3 151 note) is amended— 

4 (1) in subparagraph (A) by inserting before the 

5 period at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘, with respect to a tax (excluding a qualifying 

7 general service tax) unless the State in which 

8 such tax is imposed enacts a statute before No9 vember 1, 2007, expressly stating that such tax 

10 shall continue to apply to Internet access. For 

11 purposes of this subparagraph, the term ‘quali12 fying general service tax’ means a general State 

13 excise or gross receipts tax on services in a 

14 State that has in effect a State statute prohib15 iting discriminatory taxes on electronic com16 merce or Internet access’’, and 

17 (2) in subparagraph (B)(i) by inserting before 

18 the period at the end the following: 

19 ‘‘unless the State in which such tax is imposed 

20 enacts a statute before November 1, 2006, ex21 pressly stating that such tax shall continue to 

22 apply to Internet access’’. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of UnitedWisconsin Grain Producers, LLC (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31,2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Barb Bontrager, Chief Financial 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.                                       The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   |               /s/  Barb Bontrager |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Barb Bontrager                                                                                          |
|   | Chief Financial Officer                                                                                 |
|   | Dated: May 11, 2006                                                                                     |

 

----
#### Harry A. Norris, Justice, Etc. *v.*County Court of Cabell County et al.

(No. 7286)

Submitted March 2, 1932.

Decided March 8, 1932.

*693
      *W. C. Perry, O. J. Deegan,*and *Connor Hall,*for relator.

*L. W. Blankenship, J. F. Eaton,*and *John T. Simms,*for respondents.

Woods, Judge :

By this proceeding in mandamus a justice of the peace- of Cabell county seeks to compel the county court of said county to pay a number of fee bills, totalling $526.75, which theretofore had been presented to the prosecuting attorney for examination and found correct.

Under Code 1931, 7-5-15, 50-17-14 and 60-2-8, relator’s right to collect fees to which he is entitled under Code 1931, 50-17-11, is dependent upon fines collected by him and turned over to the sheriff to be credited to the former’s special account under the “general school fund.” However, relator seeks payment under the last cited provision, claiming that the first three are violative of the federal and state constitutions.

The decision of a question involving the constitutionality of an act is one of the gravest and most delicate of the judicial functions, and while the court will meet the question with firmness where its decision is indispensable, it is the part of wisdom, and a just respect for the legislature renders it proper, to waive it if the case in which it arises can be decided on other points.

The relief is sought under Code 1931, 50-17-11, as an embodiment of the prior long existing law. However, Code 1932, chapter 137, section 19, not only provided that “every justice shall be entitled to the following fees,” etc., as does the present section, but also stated that recovery was to be *694had under section 229 of chapter 50. This latter section made it collectible, if at all, out of the “general school fund,” and not out of the general fund as argued for by relator. Code 1931, 50-17-11, standing alone does not provide for the mode of payment. Under Code 1931, 11-8-13, the obligations which a county court may lawfully incur are limited by statute to such as it is “expressly authorized by law” to incur. *State*v. *Lewis County Court,*110 W. Va. 533, 158 S. E. 790. In the absence of an express authorization of some kind, the county court would not be warranted in making payment out of any fund of the county.

Relator has not shown that clear legal right which is required to invoke the aid of mandamus. “Clear legal right of the relator in mandamus to have performance of the act he seeks to coerce performance of, and plain duty to perform it, on the part of the respondent, are essential to the award of the writ.” *State ex rel. Smith*v. *County Court,*78 W. Va. 168.

Without entering into the question of the constitutionality of the statutes, we refuse the writ.

*Writ denied.*
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 (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.                           ( print page 10950)    

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 Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel, Maternal and Child Health in Poor Countries: Evidence from Randomized Evaluations.                     

*Date:*                         April 8, 2009.                     

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 4 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, Rockville, MD 20852 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Carla T. Walls, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6898,                         *wallsc@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: March 6, 2009. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. 

 [FR Doc. E9-5422 Filed 3-12-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Revised Schedule I



 Exhibit 10.32 
 



 
 SCHEDULE I 
 CHANGE OF CONTROL 
 SEVERANCE PLAN PARTICIPANTS 

  

			
	Benefit Level - 3
		
	Baxter, Warner L.	  	Moehn, Michael
	Cisel, Scott A.	  	Naslund, Charles D.
	Cole, Daniel F.	  	Nelson, Gregory L.
	Heflin, Adam C.	  	Rainwater, Gary L.
	Lyons, Martin J.	  	Sullivan, Steven R.
	Mark, Richard J.	  	Voss, Thomas R.
	
	Benefit Level - 2
		
	Barnes, Lynn M.	  	Mueller, Michael G.
	Birdsong, Jerre E.	  	Neff, Robert K.
	Birk, Mark C.	  	Nelson, Craig D.
	Borkowski, Maureen A.	  	Ogden, Stan E.
	Brawley, Mark	  	Pate, Ron D.
	DeGraw, Kevin	  	Power, Joseph M.
	Diya, Fadi M.	  	Reasoner, Cleveland O.*
	Foss, Karen C.	  	Schepers, David J.
	Glaeser, Scott A.	  	Schukar, Shawn E.
	Heger, Mary P.*	  	Serri, Andrew M.
	Iselin, Christopher A.	  	Sobule, James A.
	Kidwell, Stephen M.	  	Steinke, Bruce A.
	Lindgren, Mark C.	  	Wakeman, David N.*
	Menne, Michael L.	  	Weisenborn, Dennis W.
	Mosier, Don M.	  	Wiseman, D. Scott*

  

	*	Not eligible for excise tax gross-up provisions