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

 

Certification of CEO under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002

 

*I certify that this periodic report containing theissuer’s financial statements fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78mor 78o(d)) and that information contained in this periodic report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the issuer.*

 

 
| * * | * *                                | * * | *By:*  | */s/  Keith C. Robbins*            |
|----------|-----------------------------------------|----------|--------|------------------------------------|
|     |                                    |     |   |                               |
|     |                                    |     |   | President, Chief Executive Officer |
|     |                                    |     |   |                               |
|     | Date:  November 6,  2008 |     |   |                               |

 

----
ex10-18.htm




Exhibit 10.18







Summary of Director Compensation for Fiscal 2009







Each member of the Board of Directors who is not an employee of Tredegar or any of its subsidiaries receives the following annual retainers, payable in equal quarterly installments in arrears:








	
Non-Employee Director

	
$50,000


	
Chairman of the Board

	
$20,000


	
Audit Committee Chairperson

	
$14,000


	
Non-Chair Member of the Audit Committee

	
$  7,500


	
Executive Compensation Committee Chairperson

	
$  9,000


	
Non-Chair Member of the Executive Compensation Committee

	
$  5,000


	
Nominating and Governance Committee Chairperson

	
$  6,000


	
Non-Chair Member of the Nominating and Governance Committee

	
$  3,000


	
Member of the Executive Committee

	
$  4,500


	
Member of the Investment Policy Committee

	
$     625












The retainer paid to non-employee directors is paid $30,000 in cash and $20,000 in the form of a stock award.  The stock award is determined based on the closing price of Tredegar common stock as reported on the New York Stock Exchange composite on the date of grant.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 18
- 00766
- CR

Bryan Wayne Whillhite, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 391ST DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY NO. D
- 13
- 0586
- SA, TH E HONORABLE BRAD GOO DWIN, JUDGE PRESIDIN G

O R D E R F O R C L E R K T O P R O V I D E A P P E L L A T E R E C O R D TO A P P E L L A N T

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the instant appeal is frivo lous and without merit. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant’s counsel has certified to the Court that he provided copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate
record and fi le a pro se response, and supplied appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

- 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has timely filed the motion requesting access to the appellate record w ith this Court.

Appellant’s pro se motion is granted. We hereby direct the clerk of the trial
court to provide a copy of the reporter’s record and clerk’s record to appellant, and to provide2

written verification to this Court of the date and manner in w hich the appellate record was provided, on or before July 22, 2019

. See id. at 321.

It is ordered on July 11, 2019.

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly
Do Not Publish
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Cosi, Inc. (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 29, 2004,
of the Company, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form
10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Kevin Armstrong
-----------------------
Kevin Armstrong
Chief Executive Officer
May 12, 2004
Dock et N o . F AA Reco rd o f Discu ss ion _ **~** C 

# A 

# 0 '1.0 1 "t .... 

# ct: ..

**o~** l ... Direc torate Ident if i e r: -AD Wi th whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e . , Design App r oval Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NB AA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA , etc)?

O R GA NI ZATION PERSON C O N TA CTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSS E D Que s t Aircraft Br en t on Ellis 11/18/2 01 4 Other. Lis t b el ow. Desi g n Que s t Aircraft Jamie S l i ppy & 12/10 / 2014 Concur. Design Bren ton E llis

Other/Additional Information: Quest Aircraft Design concurs with the proposed action ( Mandatory Service Bulletin and Field Se r vice Instruc t i o n ) an d the c o mpliance time , a nd they p re f er AD ac t ion. How ev er, t hey have not bee n part o f t he discu ss i on as to what ty pe of AD (I A R v s NPRM ) .

10
NUMBERS 13-08-00368-CV 

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

IRMA AGUERO, ET AL., APPELLANTS,

v.

AMERICAN & EFIRD, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES.

_____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 389th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, Irma Aguero, et al., attempted to perfect an appeal from an order

entered by the 389th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-1691-03-

H. The Order Granting Defendant’s 09/21/07 Motion to Dismiss Certain Plaintiffs and

Plaintiff-Intervenors for failure to Answer Defendants’ Master Interrogatories was signed

on February 19, 2008. Appellants filed a motion for Court to Reconsider Order of
2

Dismissal or, in the Alternative, Motion to Reinstate or Motion for New Trial on March 26,

2008. Appellants’ motion for new trial was not filed within thirty days after February 19,

2008. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(a). 

 Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellants’ notice of appeal

was due on March 20, 2008, but was not filed until May 9, 2008. A motion for extension

of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of

appeal beyond the time allowed by rule 26.1, but within the fifteen-day grace period

provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959

S.W.2d 615, 617-18, 619 (1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However,

appellant must provide a reasonable explanation for the late filing: it is not enough to

simply file a notice of appeal. Id.; Woodard v. Higgins, 140 S.W.3d 462, 462 (Tex.

App.–Amarillo 2004, no pet.); In re B.G., 104 S.W.3d 565, 567 (Tex. App.–Waco 2002, no

pet.).

On June 10, 2008, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants of this defect so that

steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellants were advised that,

if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s letter,

the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellants

providing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal.

 The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant’s

failure to timely perfect their appeal, and appellants’ failure to respond to this Court’s

notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.3(a)(c).
3

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered 

and filed this the 21st day of August, 2008.
Exhibit 32.1





Chief Executive Officer Certification





In connection with General Maritime Corporation’s (the “Company”) annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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.




Date: April 27, 2012
/s/ John P. TavlariosName:
John P. TavlariosTitle:
Chief Executive Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
**Of\I~N/\1,.** UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

In the Matter of:

JET MIDWEST TECHNIK, 

### INC., Respondent. WASHINGTON, DC Served: August 5, 2015 FAA InvestigationNo. 2014CE050039 DMS No. FAA-2015-0637 Judge: Richard C. Goodwin Administrative Law Judge
COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION FORPARTIAL DISMISSAL COMES NOWthe Complainant, the Federal Aviation Administralion (FAA), by counsel, and pursuant to Section 13.218(d) ofthe Rules ofPractice inFAA Civil Penalty Proceedings, files this answer in oppositionto the Respondent's Motioninthe above-captioned case. The subject motion effectively seeks to dismiss what is no longer found in the agency's Amended Complaint filed withthe Docket Clerk on July 16, 2015. Respondent's motion should be denied, and this matter set for hearing as soon as possible. The arguments contained inthe subject motion are without merit and unavailing. This is so because with the filing ofthe agency's Amended Complaint, the allegations sought to be dismissed bythe subject motionno longer exist. Accordingly, the Respondent Company's motionis irrelevant,judiciallyinefficient, and ofno legal consequence because it is moot. WHEREFORE, the undersignedrespectfully requests the issuance ofan Order denying the Respondent's Motion, and a separate Order setting this matter for hearing. Dated this 5'11 day August 2015. 

# RECEIVED AUG I8 2015 HEARING DOCKET Respectfully submitted, Peter J. Lynch Assistant ChiefCounsel By:

Senior EnforcementAttorney Federal Aviation Administration 901 Locust Street, Room 506 Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 (816) 329-3765; Fax (816) 329-3771 Attorney for Complainant2 .JET MIDWEST TECHNIK, INC., DMS No. FAA-2015-063 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifY that I have this date sent the Complainant's Answer in Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Partial Dismissal, via the methods listed, to the below named addressees: Gregory S. Winton, Esq. 1997Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 300 Annapolis, MD 21401 (1 copy via regular mail) The Honorable Richard C Goodwin Office ofHearings, M-20

Attn: PatriciaMatthews US Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 Washington, DC 20590 (1 copyvia regular mail; 1 copy via facsimile to 202 366-7536) Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building, Room 2Wl000 (Original & 1 copy via regular mail; 1 copy via facsimile to 202-493-5142)

Datedthis 5th dayAugust 2015.



# t1f~--1L Alisa Gause Paralegal Specialist
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
officer of Accelerated Acquisitions III, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that:




The
annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the
"Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
      March 24, 2009/s/ Timothy J. NeherTimothy
      J. NeherPrincipal
      Executive Officer and PrincipalAccounting
      Officer




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ACCELERATED
ACQUISITIONS III, INC. and will be retained by ACCELERATED ACQUISITIONS III,
INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Summary of Sources Affected by the Stay and Proposed Repeal

of Grandfathering Provision for PM2.5

June 8, 2010

Region/

State

Name of Source Comments N/A Status as of May 2010

I – MA MMWEC Permit being revised to include 

PM2.5 BACT and Modeling

Brockton Permit being revised to include 

PM2.5 BACT and Modeling

III - PA AK Steel Source submitted PM2.5 

analysis – permit approval 

pending

Allegheny Ludlum Source will provide a PM2.5 

analysis

Erie Renewable Source submitted PM2.5 

analysis – permit approval 

pending

Essroc Cement Source will provide a PM2.5 

analysis

Green Renewable 

Energy

Source will provide a PM2.5 

analysis

SG Somerset Application was denied on 2-2-

2009 – SOURCE NOT AFFECTED 

BY STAY OR REPEAL

X

United Refining Source submitted PM2.5 

analysis – permit pending

V - IL Vulcan Materials PM2.5 BACT analysis planned

 

MN

3M R&D Facility Source may take synthetic 

minor limits to avoid PSD for 

PM2.5

Review ongoing

American Crystal PM2.5 BACT analysis planned Review ongoing

Anderson Windows Source may take synthetic 

minor limits to avoid PSD for 

PM2.5

Review ongoing: PM2.5 

modeling shows violations; 

state is requiring monitoring

Heron Lake Bioenergy Review ongoing: Synthetic 

minor limits planned

Sappi Cloquet PM2.5 BACT analysis complete Permit issued

USG Interiors PM2.5 BACT analysis planned Review ongoing

IX - CA Big West Project cancelled due to public 

opposition X

Colusa Generating Permit issued 9-29-08; not 

affected X

Morrow Bay Permit issued 9-25-08; not 

affected X

Victorville 2 Source agreed to do PM2.5 

analysis; awaiting revisions

Permit was issued on the basis 

of a PM2.5 analysis

Mirant Marsh Landing Source is trying to demonstrate 

that it is not subject to PSD

Mirant Willow Pass Application has not yet been 
reviewed, but likely to be 

subject to PM2.5

 

NM

Desert Rock Source has agreed to complete 

a PM2.5 analysis

No change in status; unclear if 

source will proceed with 

project.

 NV Ely Energy Center Project cancelled X

LS White Pine Project cancelled X

Toquop Energy Project Project pending; source not 

sure whether it will move 

forward or cancel

X – WA BP Cogen Source reportedly will be 

cancelled. No current plan to 

proceed X

Recent conversation with 

company confirms that they 

have no intention of proceeding 

with the project
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 Primus Guaranty, Ltd., a Bermuda company (the ‘‘Company’’), on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Thomas W. Jasper, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Richard Claiden, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |     |                                                                                                                                       
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) | to my knowledge, 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: November 8, 2007

/s/ Thomas W. JasperThomas W. JasperChief Executive Officer/s/ Richard ClaidenRichard ClaidenChief Financial Officer


---
1

Kelly, Shaheerah

From: Dwight Mallory <Dmallory@resoluteenergy.com>

Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 12:13 PM

To: Kelly, Shaheerah

Subject: RE: Information Request

Attachments: removed.txt

Shaheerah,

The information you requested is provided below.

C‐5 is an Ariel JGD‐6 compressor driven by a Reliance model 9240 AC induction motor rated at 2,500 hp.

HOS‐4 is a Dresser Rand HOS‐4 compressor driven by a General Electric model EK AC induction motor rated at 2,000 hp.

HOS‐6 is a Dresser Rand HOS‐6 compressor driven by an Allis Chalmers model 6802 AC induction motor rated at 5,000

hp.

Acid Gas A is a Worthington Cub‐4 compressor driven by a Westinghouse model 6808 AC induction motor rated at 400

hp.

Acid Gas B is a Worthington Cub‐4 compressor driven by a Westinghouse model 6808 AC induction motor rated at 400

hp.

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

Dwight E. Mallory

Environmental/Regulatory Manager

Resolute Energy Corporation

1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2800

Denver, CO 80203

Direct: 303-573-4886 X 1165

From: Kelly, Shaheerah [mailto:Kelly.Shaheerah@epa.gov]  

Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 10:25 AM

To: Dwight Mallory <Dmallory@resoluteenergy.com>

Subject: Information Request

  

Dwight,

  

Please provide the following information for each compressor engine: manufacturer, model, and horsepower

  

Unit ID

Aerial C‐5 (electrically‐driven

compressor)

HOS‐4 (electrically‐driven

compressor)

HOS‐6 (electrically‐driven

compressor)
2

Acid Gas A (electrically‐driven

compressor)

Acid Gas B (electrically‐driven

compressor)

  

  

Thank you.

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

Shaheerah Kelly

Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Phone: 415-947-4156 

Fax: 415-947-3579 

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov

  

  

This e-mail message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, privileged, and 

proprietary information of Resolute Energy Corporation. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution may be prohibited 

under law. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply E-mail of any erroneous transmission, and destroy 

the original E-mail, any attachments, and all copies of the original message. Thank you.
Order filed October 21, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00706-CV

____________

ANGLO-DUTCH PETROLEUM INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

AND ANGLO-DUTCH (TENGE), LLC, Appellants/Cross-Appellees

V.

GREENBERG PEDEN, P.C., AND GERALD J. SWONKE, 

Appellees/Cross-Appellant

On Appeal from the 61st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2004-20712

O R D E R

The clerk’s record in this appeal was filed October 15, 2014. The record 

reflects that the trial court signed a final judgment on May 13, 2014. On June 12, 

2014, the Anglo-Dutch parties filed timely motions for new trial and to modify the 

judgment. The same date, the Greenberg parties filed a timely motion to modify, 

correct, and reform the judgment, or alternatively, motion for new trial. Therefore, 

to perfect an appeal, a notice of appeal was due August 11, 2014. See Tex. R. App. 
P. 26.1(a) (requiring the notice of appeal to be filed within 90 days after the 

judgment is signed when a timely motion for new trial or other post-judgment 

motion is filed). The Anglo-Dutch parties filed their notice of appeal on August 25, 

2014. The Greenberg parties filed a notice of appeal on August 26, 2014. Rule 

26.1(d) also provides that if any party timely files a notice of appeal, another party 

may file a notice of appeal within 14 days after the first notice of appeal. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 26.1(d). Both notices were untimely, but filed within the fifteen-day 

period for requesting an extension of time. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. The parties 

did not file a motion for extension of time, however.

A motion for extension of time is “necessarily implied” when the perfecting 

instrument is filed within fifteen days of its due date. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 

S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). While an extension may be implied, a party filing an 

untimely notice of appeal is still obligated to come forward with a reasonable 

explanation to support the late filing. See Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center 

Assocs., Ltd., 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no 

pet.). 

Accordingly, we ORDER the parties to file proper motions to extend time to 

file the notices of appeal within 15 days of the date of this order. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 26.3; 10.5(b). The court may dismiss the appeal of a non-compliant party. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM