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

Robert E. Balletto, President and Chief Executive Officer and Joseph W. Kennedy,
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer of Georgetown  Bancorp,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  each certify in their capacity as officers of the Company that
they have  reviewed  the annual  report of the  Company  on Form  10-KSB for the
fiscal ended June 30, 2006 and that to the best of their knowledge:

1.    the report fully complies with the  requirements  of Sections 13(a) 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.

The purpose of this  statement  is solely to comply  with Title 18,  Chapter 63,
Section  1350 of the United  States  Code,  as  amended  by  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

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


September 25, 2006            \s\ Robert E. Balletto
----------------------        --------------------------------------------
Date                          Robert E. Balletto
                              President and Chief Executive Officer


September 25, 2006            \s\ Joseph W. Kennedy
----------------------        --------------------------------------------
Date                          Joseph W. Kennedy
                              Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 10.24****SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE**     This Second Amendment to Lease (this “Amendment”) is entered into effective as of the1st day of August 2006 by and between SUMO HOLDINGS MARYLAND, LLC, a California limitedliability company (hereinafter referred to as “Landlord”) and LEET-MELBROOK, INC., a Marylandcorporation (hereinafter referred to as “Tenant”).**RECITALS**     A. On December 7, 1995, Richard L. Dietrick and Garnetta J. Dietrick (collectively referred toas “the Dietricks”) and Tenant entered into a Lease Agreement (“Lease”) for the premises commonlyknown as 18810 Woodfield Road, Gaithersburg, Maryland (the “Demised Premises”).     B. On November 8, 2001, the Dietricks assigned all of their right, title and interest in andto the Lease to Landlord.     C. On August 2, 2005, Landlord and Tenant amended the Lease to grant Tenant an additionaloption to extend the term of the Lease for five (5) years, which option Tenant exercised.     D. The parties now desire to further amend the Lease on the terms and conditions set forth inthis Amendment.**AGREEMENT**     NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is herebyacknowledged, the parties hereby amend the Lease upon the terms and subject to the conditions setforth in this Amendment:     1. Capitalized Terms. Capitalized terms not defined in this Amendment shall have the meaningsset forth in the Lease.     2. Section 3(a) of the Lease is hereby amended to provide that the basic annual rent for theperiod from and including August 2006 through and including July 2011 shall be One HundredSeventy-Three Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($173,500), payable in equal monthly installments.     3. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall bedeemed an original and all of which shall constitute one instrument.     4. Other Terms and Conditions. All other terms and conditions of the Lease, as previouslyamended, will continue in full force and effect except as expressly modified in this Amendment.The terms and conditions of the Lease, as previously amended, are incorporated into this Amendmentby reference, and the terms and conditions of this Amendment are incorporated by reference into theLease, as previously amended.
 

 
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment effective as of the date firstset forth above.         **LANDLORD:**         SUMO HOLDINGS MARYLAND, LLC,  a California limited liability company                By: /s/ Sathiyamurthy Chandramohan         Sathiyamurthy Chandramohan           Its: Manager         **TENANT:**         LEET-MELBROOK, INC.,  a Maryland corporation                By: /s/ Mark W. Legg         Mark W. Legg           Its: Chief Financial Officer
2
Daniel WHEELER, Appellant, v. Erica WHEELER, individually, and o/b/o Bane Wheeler, Breanna Lowenstein, and Bianca Lowenstein, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1564

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# Official Journal L 14/2015

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 14 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5821 January 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 14

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5821 January 2015

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/79 of 18 December 2014 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 laying down implementing technical standards with regard to supervisory reporting of institutions according to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards asset encumbrance, single data point model and validation rules (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/80 of 20 January 2015 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 45 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/79 of 18 December 2014 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 laying down implementing technical standards with regard to supervisory reporting of institutions according to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards asset encumbrance, single data point model and validation rules (
  1
  )

1

1

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/80 of 20 January 2015 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

45

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
From: Barnett.Keith@epamail.epa.gov

Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 11:48 AM

To: cwhiteman@icac.com

Cc: Laney, Michael N.

Subject: Portland Cement NESHAP and NSPS

Dear Chad:

I think a covered some of the areas of specific EPA concern about control performance when I did the

presentation on the proposed Portland Cement NESHAP. However, I wanted to add some additional

information, share some areas of additional concerns for both the NESHAP and NSPS, and ask for some

contact information.

1. Do you have some contacts for companies that manufacture and install total hydrocarbon monitors

and VOC monitors?

2. I heard somewhere that ICAC was preparing or had prepared a white paper on SNCR vs. SCR for NOx

control. Is that correct, and if so could I get a copy?

3. I had one conversation with a wet scrubber vendor on the use of water scrubbers vs. caustic

scrubbers for HCl control. Based on that conversation, it would appear that to get the HCl emission

numbers we are proposing, you would need caustic and potentially to use a packed bed rather than a

spray tower scrubber. I hope that while you and/or your members are preparing your comments you are

able to thoroughly address this issue.

4. We did not propose that kilns that use wet scrubbers for HCl control in the NESHAP monitor for HCl.

However, scrubber parameter monitoring, or monitoring SO2 as a surrogate, would probably be

necessary. We are hoping your comments will address the issue of what operating parameters do you

need to monitor when using a wet scrubber for HCl control and/or SO2 control to insure the device is

performing properly. My guess would be liquid flow rate, pH, and solids content of the scrubber liquid.

5. Currently all cement kilns that have wet scrubbers produce gypsum that is fed to the finish mill with

the clinker to produce cement. In all of these cases, all of the gypsum produced by the scrubber can be

used in the grinding process. But what about the situation where a facility has to install wet scrubber

for HCl control, but they have low SO2 emissions. In that case they would not produce as much gypsum.

Does this present a problem? Or would the facility simply have less gypsum available to add to the

finish mill.

6. I was told that when an ESP is used for particulate matter control, some facilities add ammonia as a

conditioning agent. Is this ever done in the cement industry? If so, does anyone know where?

Please contact me if you have questions.

Keith W. Barnett

USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

Mail Code D243

‐ 02

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

919

‐ 541

‐ 5605

barnett.keith@epa.gov
Riley K. EASLEY v. Saudra KNIGHT

2150991

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Order entered De cember 13, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-20-00186-CR

DANIEL ARTURO CONTRERAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TE XAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18-76586-H

ORDER

Appellant has filed a motion for rehear ing requesting that we modify the

trial court’s judgments to remove unauthori zed court costs. Appellant contends the

State agrees to the modifications. We ca nnot grant a motion for rehearing unless a

response has been filed or requested. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.2. We ORDER the

State to file a response to the motion within fourteen days of the date of this order.

/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE
^'ti?JLiH^«« TOWN OF LEXINGTON TM^'^^S£^S 

'"j:^^ " ::-PARTMENTOF MAfLlNC ADDRESS 

MAVORPRO-TEM ^<<3J'*«::>. ; n A lOnAnTATtXll Pwt Office Boi 397 

/2^v^f!3^ ' :<EI OPERATIONS INFORMATION 

COUNCIL W[( M JlfVO l H MMW-41M 

Duny Frazier \j,\\..di./ ^ ^^* W WWWJ«XKLC»IB 

Ttddstae^diik NSr ^ ^^ ^ ^•J'-' jf^T - 1 A IQ: 2 5 FAX 

Ted Suubolitk \!!>»*i—^^"^ S9J-359-44S0 

August 17, 2010 

Ms. Susan Kurland 

Assistant Secretary for Aviation & International Affairs, X-1 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE W88-324 

Washington, DC 20590 

Subject: Small Community Air Service Development Grant Application 

Docket OST-2010-0124 

Columbia Metropolitan Airport - Columbia, SC 

Dear Ms. Kurland: 

As the Mayor of Lexington, SC and a frequent air traveler, I strongly support the air service 

proposal detailed in the Small Community Air Service Development Program grant application. 

Commercial air service at Columbia Metropolitan Airport plays a vital role in providing support 

to education, government, business, and leisure travel to/from the area. 

Future community growth of the Columbia communities depends, in part, on the airport's ability 

to meet the needs of existing local Lexington businesses as well as companies considering 

Colimibia as a location for their operations. The proposal to support improved air service will 

greatly improve our ability to remain competitive in the global marketplace, which is the basis 

for supporting the local economy and attracting new businesses and residents to the area. 

The Columbia Metropolitan Airport has forged strong partnerships with both the business and 

governmental communities to retain and improve local air service. We appreciate the 

opportunity to expand that partnership to include the U.S. Department of Transportation through 

the Small Community Air Service Development Program. 

Sincerel 

Halfacre, Mayor 

Swn of Lexington 

cc: U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham 

U. S. Congressman Joe Wilson
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0664 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. TANYA TWOTEETH,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 5 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 29 2023

08/29/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0664
Amendment to Restricted Stock Agreement



 Exhibit 10.4 
 CELL THERAPEUTICS, INC. 
 501 Elliott Avenue West, Suite 400 

Seattle, Washington 98119 

September 20, 2011 

Dr. James A. Bianco 
 501 Elliott
Avenue West, Ste 400 
 Seattle, WA 98119 
 Dear Jim: 
 I write concerning the outstanding award of restricted stock granted
to you by Cell Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) on March 21, 2011 (the “Award”). The purpose of this letter is to amend the tax withholding provision of the agreement that evidences the Award (the “Award
Agreement”) to provide you with the opportunity to elect to have the Company satisfy its tax withholding obligations incurred in connection with the Award by reacquiring a portion of the shares subject to the Award (as opposed to the Company
satisfying its withholding obligations by automatically reacquiring such shares). 
 Accordingly, effective immediately,
Section 9 of the Award Agreement is hereby amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows: 

“9. Tax Withholding. The Company (or any of its Subsidiaries last employing the Participant) shall be
entitled to require a cash payment by or on behalf of the Participant and/or to deduct from other compensation payable to the Participant any sums required by federal, state or local tax law to be withheld with respect to the vesting of any
Restricted Shares. Alternatively, the Company may (but is not required to) permit the Participant to elect, in such manner and at such time or times prior to any applicable tax date as may be permitted or required under Section 11 of the Plan
and rules established by the Committee, to have the Company withhold and reacquire Restricted Shares at their Fair Market Value at the time of vesting to satisfy any withholding obligations of the Company or its Subsidiaries with respect to such
vesting. Any election to have shares so held back and reacquired shall be subject to such rules and procedures as the Committee may impose, and shall not be available if the Participant makes or has made an election pursuant to Section 83(b) of
the Code with respect to such Award.” 
 Except as expressly set forth above, this letter agreement does not modify any
other terms of your Award. In other words, the existing vesting, termination of employment and other provisions of your Award continue in effect. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	Cell Therapeutics, Inc.
	
	 /s/ Louis A. Bianco

	Louis A. Bianco
	Executive Vice President, Finance and Administration
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.10    
    


 
 

Description of Verigy's Pay-for-Results Program    
    



 General  




        The following is summary of the key provisions of Verigy's Pay-for-Results program as in effect during fiscal 2007. There is no formal
plan document related to this program. 


        The
pay-for-results program is designed to link the cash compensation for designated executives and other key contributors directly to business performance. The
program provides for the payment of cash bonuses above base pay if pre-determined business performance measures are met and/or exceeded. 



 Administration  




        The Compensation Committee of the Board administered the program as it related to executives, and approved attainment levels for all participants. 



 Participation and Eligibility  




        All executives and certain other key contributors participated in the program during fiscal 2007. To be eligible for payment, participants had to be employed at
the last day of the bonus period. 



 Plan Operation  




        The program was administered in six-month performance periods that coincided with each half of Verigy's fiscal year. Each participant's target bonus
was an amount, equal to a fixed percentage of the participant's base salary. The stated percentage included, in each case, a target of 15% of the participant's base salary that is tied to the same
objective as applies to all employees under Verigy's company-wide bonus program. Target bonuses were paid if 100% of all applicable performance measures were met in the performance period. 



        Performance
measures for both periods in fiscal 2007 were achievement of target pro forma operating profit. Pro forma operating margin is calculated for purposes of the program by
excluding from GAAP results (i) FAS123R compensation expenses recorded with respect to equity-based compensation; and (ii) restructuring and separation expenses incurred in connection
with Verigy's separation from Agilent Technologies, Inc. For certain individuals, the program provided weighting for the financial results associated with the product family with which they are
primarily associated while other participants targets were based entirely on overall company-wide results. 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.10


Description of Verigy's Pay-for-Results Program
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 6128

JERITON LAVAR CURRY ,
Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Max O. Cogburn, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:22

- cv
- 00180

- MOC )

Submitted : August 29 , 2023 Decided: August 31, 2023

Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jeriton Lavar Curry, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6128 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:

Jeriton Lavar Curry appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge his sentence by way of the savings clause
in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Curry v. United States , No. 3:22

- cv
00180

- MOC (W.D.N.C. Sept. 1, 2022). ∗ We deny Curry’s pending motions. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not a id the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

∗ Curry filed his notice of appeal on December 12, 2022, more than 60 days after the district court dismissed his petition. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). However, the court did not enter its final order until March 27, 2023, when it denied Curry’s pendi ng motion to amend. Accordingly, we conclude that Curry’s notice of appeal was timely. See Porter v. Zook , 803 F.3d 694 , 696 (4th Cir. 2015); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2). USCA4 Appeal: 23-6128 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         416,818
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   78,711
<ALLOWANCES>                                    26,718
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       3,732,989
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,556,768
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 672,014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     650,846
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   672,014
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               330,175
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  389,068
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                206,215
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            206,215
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   206,215
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32



THE SANDS REGENT

CERTIFICATION OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS



The following certifications
are being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 x and in accordance with SEC Release No. 33-8238. These certifications shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, nor shall they be incorporated by reference in any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.



Certification of Chief Executive and Principal
Accounting Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of The Sands Regent, a Nevada corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:



|(i) | the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Date: May 13, 2005



|    |  |                                                 
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /S/    FERENC B. SZONY                          
|    |  | Ferenc B. Szony                                 
|    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer           
|    | 
|By: |  | /S/    CORNELIUS T. KLERK                       
|    |  | Cornelius T. Klerk                              
|    |  | Chief Financial and Principal Accounting Officer