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



EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, James E. Hogue, as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of
Wiltex A, Inc., (the Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

1. the accompanying Form 10QSB report for the period ending December 31, 2003
as filed with the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company.

By: /s/ JAMES E. HOGUEJames E. HogueChairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)Date: February 10, 2004
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 In connection with the Annual Report of eCrypt Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009 (the Report), I, Brad Lever, Chief Executive Officer 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  July 7,, 2009 /s/Brad Lever, Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Howard Pierson, IV, Petitioner, v James F. Kralik, as Sheriff of the County of Rockland, et al., Respondents.

[719 NYS2d 695]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent James F. Kralik, as the Sheriff of the County of Rockland, dated January 9, 1998, which, after a hearing, found the petitioner guilty of stated specifications in the charges, and terminated his employment as a Correction Officer for the County of Rock-land.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The punishment of termination from employment is not disproportionate to the offenses committed by the petitioner and the fact that it exceeded the punishment recommended by the Hearing Officer and imposed upon other correction officers *631involved in the incident does not shock one’s sense of fairness. The petitioner was found guilty of having violated “the primary mission of a correction officer to be responsible for the care custody and control of inmates,” after he permitted two inmates to engage in an organized fight which resulted in head injuries to one of the inmates. The petitioner failed to obtain immediate medical treatment for the injured inmate, failed to report the incident, and perjured himself during the investigation into the incident. The petitioner’s conduct was fundamentally at variance with the conduct expected of a peace officer. “Much deference is to be afforded to an agency’s determination regarding a sanction, especially in situations where, as here, matters of internal discipline in a law enforcement organization are concerned” *(Matter of Santos v Chesworth,*133 AD2d 1001, 1003; *see also, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward,*70 NY2d 436; *Matter of Alfieri v Murphy,*38 NY2d 976; *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222, 234; *Matter of Murphy v New York City Tr. Auth.,*205 AD2d 634). Krausman, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration # 11690 and # 11691] 

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Amendment 1. 

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Administrative declaration of disaster for the State of Texas dated 03/10/2009. 

*Incident:*                         Bastrop County Wildland Fire.                     

*Incident Period:*                         02/28/2009 through 03/13/2009.                     

*Effective Date:*                         03/17/2009.                     

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         5/11/2009.                     

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         12/10/2009.                     

      ( print page 13296)    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the Administrator's disaster declaration in the State of Texas, dated 03/10/2009, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 02/28/2009 and continuing through 03/13/2009. 

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Dated: March 18, 2009. 

Darryl K. Hairston, 

Acting Administrator. 

 [FR Doc. E9-6742 Filed 3-25-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 25, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 12783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6681]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R06-RCRA-2008-0756-; FRL-8784-8]


New Mexico: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste 
Management Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The State of New Mexico has applied to EPA for Final 
authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant 
Final authorization to the State of New Mexico. In the ``Rules and 
Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, EPA is authorizing the 
changes by an immediate final rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior 
to the immediate final rule because we believe this action is not 
controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. We have 
explained the reasons for this authorization in the preamble to the 
immediate final rule. Unless we get written comments which oppose this 
authorization during the comment period, the immediate final rule will 
become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take 
further action on this proposal. If we receive comments that oppose 
this action, we will withdraw the immediate final rule and it will not 
take effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later final 
rule based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for 
comment. If you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this 
time.

DATES: Send your written comments by April 24, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional 
Authorization Coordinator, (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting 
Division, at the address shown below. You can examine copies of the 
materials submitted by the State of New Mexico during normal business 
hours at the following locations: New Mexico Environment Department, 
2905 Rodeo Park Drive East, Building 1, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505-
6303, phone number (505) 476-6035 and EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, phone number (214) 665-8533; or Comments may 
also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier; 
please follow the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the 
immediate final rule which is located in the Rules section of this 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson (214) 665-8533.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, please see the 
immediate final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations''section 
of this Federal Register.

    Dated: March 5, 2009.
 Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
 [FR Doc. E9-6681 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
---

Exhibit 32

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

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Cognos Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
August 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), we, Robert G. Ashe, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Tom Manley, Senior Vice President, Finance & Administration and Chief
Financial Officer 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 to the best of our
knowledge:

(1)       
          The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)       
          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|October 4, 2005 |  | /s/ Robert G. Ashe                                  
|--------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|                |  |                                                     
|Date            |  | Robert G. Ashe,President and Chief Executive
Officer

|October 4, 2005 |  | /s/ Tom Manley                                                                                                                                              
|--------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                |  |                                                                                                                                                             
|Date            |  | Tom Manley,
Senior Vice President, Finance & Administration and    Chief Financial Officer     (Principal Financial
Officer    and Chief Accounting Officer)

This certification is being submitted
solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code. This certification is not to be deemed filed for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liability
of that section, nor will the certification be deemed incorporated by reference in to any
filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to
the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.

84
James Leon AKIN, Jr. v. STATE

CR-15-0345

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 21, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Barbara J. PHILLIPS, as Trustee of the Barbara J. Phillips Trust, and as Guardian to Walter R. Phillips, Jennifer L. Phillips Individually and as Trustee of the Barbara J. Phillips Flite Trust; and Margaret K. Camp, Appellants, v. RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Appellee

Case No. 2D16-1543

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 23, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EVERBANK, Appellant, v. Earl DUNKLEY; City of Tampa, Florida; Unknown Tenants in Possession #1 as to Unit A, Unknown Tenants in Possession #2 as to Unit A, Unknown Tenants in Possession #1 as to Unit B, Unknown Tenants in Possession #2 as to Unit B, If living, and all Unknown Parties claiming by, through, under and against the above named Defendant(s) who are not known to be dead or alive, whether said Unknown Parties may claim an interest as Spouse, Heirs, Devisees, Grantees, or Other Claimants, Appellees.

Case No. 2D16-2707

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Brian Keith HUTCHINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-2970

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed October 17, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 3.4**

| **CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION FOR NEVADA PROFIT CORPORATIONS** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| ** **                                                                               |
| **(Pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390 – After Issuance of Stock)**                  |

****

1.  Name of corporation:    Riverbend Telecom, Inc.

2.  The articles have been amended as follows (provide article numbers, if available):

Article I (Name) of the First Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Riverbend Telecom, Inc. has been amended to change the name of the corporation from “Riverbend Telecom, Inc.” to “UnitedeSystems, Inc.”  As amended, said Article I now reads as follows:

The name of the corporation is United eSystems, Inc. (“Corporation”).

3.  The vote by which the stockholders holding shares in the corporation entitling them to exercise at least a majority of the voting power, or such greater proportion of the voting power as may be required in thecase of a vote by classes or series, or as may be required by the provisions of the articles of incorporation have voted in favor of the amendment is:

For: 100%;   Against: 0%

4.  Effective date of filing (optional):

5.  Officer Signature (required):
|  /s/ WALTER REID GREEN, JR., CFO                      |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Walter Reid Green, Jr. CFO                                                                                                                                          |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT FUND III SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,833
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  152,552
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,562
<PP&E>                                      10,591,397
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,807,865
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,337,356
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,271,849
<BONDS>                                      3,044,397
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     173,787
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,337,356
<SALES>                                        566,780
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               567,413
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  418,057
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               464,427
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             299,404
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (322,900)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (322,900)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (322,900)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (8.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (8.84)
        

</TABLE>
Amendment No. 4 to the Employee Savings Plan, amended as of November 15, 2004



 Exhibit 10.9.4 
 AMENDMENT NO. 4 
 TO THE 
 UNIFIED WESTERN GROCERS, INC. 
 EMPLOYEE SAVINGS PLAN 
 Unified Western Grocers, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby amends the above-named plan (the “Plan”), effective as of October 1, 2004,
as follows: 
 1. The first two sentences of Section 9.1 of the Plan are hereby amended in their entirety to read as follows:

 “The Company, acting through the Board of Directors, or the Committee may amend the Plan from time to time and may amend or cancel any
such amendment. Each amendment must be set forth in a document that is signed by an officer of the Company, and the Plan shall be deemed to have been amended in the manner and at the time set forth in such document, and all Participants shall be
bound by it.” 
 2. Section 8.6 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 
 “Section 8.6: Administrative Expenses Of The Plan. All reasonable expenses of administering the Plan, including, but
not limited to, actuarial, administration, accounting, investment, recordkeeping, and legal fees and costs incurred in connection with such activities, shall be paid by the Trustee pursuant to the direction of the Committee and shall be a charge
against the trust estate, except to the extent that such expenses may be paid by the Company. The Committee, in the Committee’s sole discretion, shall determine whether each such charge shall be allocated pro rata or per capita to
Participants’ Accounts, and whether such a charge shall be allocated directly to the Accounts of the affected Participant. The expense of maintaining errors and omissions liability insurance, if any, covering members of the Committee, the
Trustee, or any other Fiduciary shall be paid by the Company.” 
 * * * * * 
 The Company has caused this Amendment No. 4 to be signed on the date indicated below, to be effective as indicated above. 
  

									
		 		 	“Company”
			
		 		 	UNIFIED WESTERN GROCERS, INC.
				
	Date: November 15, 2004	 		 	By:	 	/s/ Don Gilpin
		 		 		 		 	Don Gilpin
		 		 		 	Its: 	 	Vice President, Human Resources
Exhibit
32.2





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 report on Form 10-K of Aurum, Inc.(the
“Company”) for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), the
undersigned, Peter James Lee, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:





(1)           The
report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.








Date:  January
28, 2010




/s/
      Peter LeePeter
      James LeeSecretary
      andChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)




31
----

Removal from the register of Case C-396/04 (1)

(2005/C 217/71)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

By order of 12 May 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-396/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland.

----

(1)OJ C 273 6.11.2004.

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES BAILEY, a single man,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CHELAN COUNTY, a Municipal Corp.;

et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-35990

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00461-RHW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Robert H. Whaley, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 4, 2013

Seattle, Washington

Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff James Bailey appeals the district court’s judgment following a jury

verdict in favor of Defendants Mike Lamon and Lee Risdon (“Defendants”), two

Chelan County Sheriff deputies. We affirm.

FILED

DEC 06 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1. Bailey argues that the district court erred by failing to give his

Proposed Jury Instruction No. 3. The proposed instruction elaborated on the

definition of “actively resisting” as that term is used in the excessive force

instruction given by the district court. We disagree. There was no error in the

district court’s jury instruction on the elements of Bailey’s Fourth Amendment

excessive force claim. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989); Ninth

Circuit Model Jury Instruction No. 9.22. The district court’s instruction allowed

Bailey’s counsel to argue her theory of the case. See Brewer v. City of Napa, 210

F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th Cir. 2000). The district court therefore did not abuse its

discretion in declining to give Bailey’s proposed instruction defining “actively

resisting.”

2. Bailey also argues that the district court erred in excluding the

testimony of two of his treating physicians, Drs. Wall and Travers. Even

assuming that the district court erred or abused its discretion in excluding the

doctors’ testimony, the error was harmless. See Matter of Yagman, 796 F.2d 1165,

1176 (9th Cir. 1986) opinion amended on denial of reh’g sub nom. In re Yagman,

803 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 1986). First, there was no dispute that the officers used

force to arrest Bailey, and second, the jury’s special verdict found that the officers

did not use excessive force.

2
AFFIRMED. 

3