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





PHARMOS CORPORATION


SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION





In connection with the quarterly report of PHARMOS CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, ROBERT F. JOHNSTON, Executive Chairman (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.





This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.





Date: August 4, 2010





By: /s/ Robert F. Johnston











A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Pharmos Corporation and will be retained by Pharmos Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EE EX_10.42-06 2014.12.31 10K


Exhibit 10.42-06







Emmanuel Villalobos
Forward Marketer, Long-Term Trading
El Paso Electric Company


September 17, 2014


Mr. Don Stoneberger
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Energy Services
333 North Central Avenue Suite 21.021
Phoenix, AZ   85004


Re:  Power Purchase and Sale Agreement between Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Energy Services, LLC And El Paso Electric Company


Dear Mr. Stoneberger,


Pursuant to Section 3.4 of the Power Purchase and Sale Agreement (“Agreement”) between Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Energy Services, LLC (“FMES”) (formerly, Phelps Dodge Energy Services, LLC) and El Paso Electric Company (“EPE”), FMES and EPE (collectively the “Parties”) hereby agree to maintain the quantity for energy to be purchased and sold under Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the Agreement at 125 MW per hour through 11:59 p.m. Mountain Standard Time on December 31, 2015.  This is in accordance with our recent phone conversations, and subsequent acceptance of FMES’ offer for an additional 25 MW for the period of one year.  The parties further agree that the quantity of firm energy that may be dispatched by EPE pursuant to Section 3.6 of the Agreement is 125 MW per hour, less the quantity of energy sold and delivered by FMES pursuant to Section 3.1.  The amount of energy to be purchased and sold under the Agreement was set to revert to the original base contract amount of 100 MW per hour, on 11:59 p.m. Mountain Standard Time on December 31, 2014, based on a May 13, 2013 agreement between the Parties.


Please indicate FMES’ acknowledgement of the foregoing agreement by signing this letter in the place indicated below and returning the original or a copy thereof to my attention at your earliest convenience.


Sincerely,


Emmanuel Villalobos


/s/ Emmanuel Villalobos


[AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES]
El Paso Electric Company
APPROVED AS TO FORM
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL  /s/ Cynthia Henry


/s/ David C. Hawkins                                                                                        
VP System Operations Resource Planning & Management  
                                                                                                                                


Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Energy Services, LLC




/s/ Don Stoneberger____________________
President, Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Energy Services, LLC
EX-31.1 8
exh31-1.htm EXHIBIT 31.1








**CERTIFICATIONS**





I, Steven
B. Solomon, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Citadel Security Software Inc., a
Delaware corporation;





2. Based
on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;





3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;





4. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:





a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and prodedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;





b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





c)
disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a) all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and





b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial
reporting.








Date:
March 31, 2005





/s/
STEVEN B. SOLOMON


Steven B.
Solomon, Chief Executive Officer


Principal
Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      9
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                                          <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1996 
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                            17,071          
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                                80
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   4,930 
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                       0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       65,859 
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            10,705
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              10,666
<LOANS>                                          247,014
<ALLOWANCE>                                        2,376
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   355,690
<DEPOSITS>                                       299,538
<SHORT-TERM>                                           0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                3,889
<LONG-TERM>                                            0
<COMMON>                                           3,327
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                        27,604  
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                   355,690
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   14,800          
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  3,273 
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     957
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  19,030
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 8,209
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 9,020
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             10,010
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        360
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   476
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    8,278 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    3,411
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         2,625
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0 
<NET-INCOME>                                       2,625
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        .86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .86
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                         0          
<LOANS-NON>                                           90
<LOANS-PAST>                                         186
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     244
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    2,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   2,220
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        258
<RECOVERIES>                                          54
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  2,376
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                                0
        

</TABLE>
#### KINSTON COTTON MILLS, Appellant, v. KUHNE et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 22, 1912.)

Action by the Kinston Cotton Mills against Percivai Kuhne and others. M. L. Stover, for appellant. G. T. Hogg, foi respondents. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed. See, also, 129 App. Div. 250, 113 N. Y. Supp. 779.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

ROBERT DAVID DILLION, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) 

v. ) No. 2:15 CV 405

)

LAKE COUNTY JAIL, ) 

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Robert David Dillion, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint alleging that he is not

receiving proper medical treatment for his broken arm at the Lake County Jail. “A

document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however

inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings

drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and

citations omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review

the merits of a prisoner complaint. 

The only defendant named in the complaint is the Lake County Jail. However,

the jail is a building. It is not a suable entity. Smith v. Knox County Jail, 666 F.3d 1037,

1040 (7th Cir. 2012). Therefore this complaint does not state a claim. 

Dillion does not name who at the jail knows that he needs medical treatment and

is refusing to provide it to him. “A plaintiff bringing a civil rights action must prove

that the defendant personally participated in or caused the unconstitutional actions.”

Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763, 776 (7th Cir. 2008). “[P]ublic employees are
responsible for their own misdeeds but not for anyone else’s.” Burks v. Raemisch, 555

F.3d 592, 596 (7th Cir. 2009). 

There is no indication that Dillion does not know who is denying him medical

treatment. Rather, it appears that he simply did not know that in a § 1983 lawsuit, he

needed to name that person in his/her individual capacity. Therefore he will be

permitted to file an amended complaint. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir.

2013). 

For these reasons, the court: 

(1) DIRECTS the clerk to place this cause number on a blank Prisoner Complaint

42 U.S.C. § 1983 form and send it to Robert David Dillion with one summons and one

USM-285 form; 

(2) GRANTS Robert David Dillion until December 3, 2015, to file an amended

complaint; and 

(3) CAUTIONS Robert David Dillion that if he does not respond by that

deadline, this case will be dismissed without further notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915A. 

SO ORDERED.

Date: November 2, 2015

 s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
#### FORDON v. _ FORDON.

(Supreme Court, _ Appellate Division, First Department.

March 29, 1912.)

Action by Alfred C. Fordon against Ella Fordon. No opinion. Motion denied, without costs. Order filed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 1, 2017

p0125 

# Order

Clerk February 1, 2017

153110 & (84)

NL VENTURES VI FARMINGTON, LLC,

Plaintiff

- Appellant/Cross

- Appellee,

v SC: 153110

COA: 323144

Wayne CC: 13

- 004863

- CZ

CITY OF LIVONIA,

Defendant

- Appellee/Cross

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 28, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order

addressing: (1) whether 1939 PA 178 , MCL 123.161 et seq. , MCL 141.121(3), or any

other statute authorized the method by which defendant sought to enforce collection of

the disputed liens; and if there was statutory authority (2) whether defendant is prohibited

from collecting the disputed l iens because defendant failed to place them on the tax roll

each year as required by Livonia Ordinance, § 13.08.300. The parties should not submit

mere restatements of their application papers. The application for leave to appeal as

cross

- appellant remai ns pending.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

                    [COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPORATION LETTERHEAD]

DATE:   12/4/01

TO:     Matthew Gabel
        Bank of America

FROM:   Ben K. Wells
        Compaq Computer Corporation

REF:    RATABLE REDUCTION OF COMMITMENT IN MULTIYEAR FACILITY

================================================================================

This notice is delivered pursuant to the terms of section 2.07 of the existing
Revolving Credit Agreement dated September 22, 1997.

Effective Friday, December 7, 2001, the existing facility will be reduced from
the current $2.25 billion to an aggregate $2.0 billion.

Apply the required ratable reduction to all commitments under this facility, and
notify the bank group of this change in commitment status.

Regards,

/s/ BEN K. WELLS
-----------------------------------
Ben K. Wells
Vice President, Corporate Treasurer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

JOHN M. KULCSAR, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

 

AUTOZONE, INC., 

 Defendant. 

 Case No.: 3:15-CV-289-JVB-CAN 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Plaintiff John Kulcsar, who is not represented by counsel, moved for an extension to 

amend his Complaint. 

 A party may amend his pleading beyond the time parameters of Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 15(a)(1) by leave of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A court should freely grant 

leave to amend when justice so requires. Id.

However, a court may deny an amendment for reasons such as “undue delay, bad faith or 

dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments 

previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the 

amendment [and] futility of amendment.” Barry Aviation Inc. v. Land O’Lakes Mun. Airport 

Comm’n, 377 F.3d 682, 687 (7th Cir. 2004) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S 178, 182 (1962)). 

Delay alone is usually not a sufficient reason for a court to deny a motion to amend. But a longer 

delay tends to create a greater presumption against granting leave to amend. Soltys v. Costello, 

520 F.3d 737, 743 (7th Cir. 2008). 

If there is no apparent or declared reason not to grant leave to amend, generally “the 

leave sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely given.’” Cont’l Bank, N.A. v. Meyer, 10 F.3d 
2 

1293, 1298 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at 182). “It is settled that the grant of leave 

to amend the pleadings pursuant to Rule 15(a) is within the discretion of the trial court.” Zenith 

Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330 (1971); accord, e.g., J.D. Marshall 

Int’l, Inc. v. Redstart, Inc., 935 F.2d 815, 819 (7th Cir. 1991). 

The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion to amend. The Court finds that granting leave to 

amend will not result in undue delay. Moreover, there is no indication Plaintiff seeks leave to 

amend in bad faith, or for a dilatory motive, and Plaintiff has not previously amended his 

Complaint. An amendment would not unduly prejudice Defendant. Finally, the Court cannot 

conclude at this juncture that an amendment would be futile. 

Therefore, in the interests of justice, the Court: 

1) GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension to Amend Complaint (DE 14). Plaintiff 

may file an Amended Complaint by April 25, 2016; 

2) NOTES that if Plaintiff does not file an Amended Complaint by April 25, 2016, the 

Court will rule on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (DE 10); 

3) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate the Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss (DE 17). 

SO ORDERED on March 22, 2016. 

 s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

 JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
# L_2008060EN.01002901.xml

| 5.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 60/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 60/29

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 18 February 2008

on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Kyrgyz Republic on certain aspects of air services

(2008/195/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 80(2) in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 5 June 2003 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 5 June 2003 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement.

| (2) | The Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Community, an Agreement with the Kyrgyz Republic on certain aspects of air services (the Agreement) in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Council Decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Community, an Agreement with the Kyrgyz Republic on certain aspects of air services (the Agreement) in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Council Decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement.

| (3) | The agreement was signed on behalf of the European Community subject to its possible conclusion at a later date, in accordance with Council Decision 2007/470/EC (1). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The agreement was signed on behalf of the European Community subject to its possible conclusion at a later date, in accordance with Council Decision 2007/470/EC (1).

| (4) | The agreement should be approved, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The agreement should be approved,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Agreement between the European Community and the Kyrgyz Republic on certain aspects of air services is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.

Article 2

The President of the Council is authorised to designate the person empowered to make the notification provided for in Article 9.1 of the Agreement.

Done at Brussels, 18 February 2008.

For the Council

The President

D. RUPEL

---

(1)  
  OJ L 179, 7.7.2007, p. 38.

1

---
#### PEOPLE ex rel. NEW YORK CLEARING-HOUSE BLDG. CO., Appellant, v. BARKER et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 13, 1899.)

Proceeding by the people of the state of New York, on the relation of the New York ClearingHouse -Building Company against Edward T. Barker and others. D. Willcox, for appellant. J. M. Ward, for respondents.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs, on the authority of People v. Barker, 31 App. Div. 315, 51 N. Y. Supp. 1102, 53 N. Y. Supp. 1111.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 102 (Friday, May 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28014-28015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12936]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to OMB for 
Review

May 15, 1995.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law 96-511. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
    Special Request: In order to conduct the focus group interviews 
described below in a timely manner, the Department of Treasury is 
requesting Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and approval of 
this information collection by May 25, 1995. To obtain a copy of this 
survey, please write to the IRS Clearance Officer at the address listed 
below.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-1432.
    Project Number: PC:V 95-007-G.
    Type of Review: Revision.
    Title: Focus Group Interviews for Gathering Records.
    Description: The objective of the study is to gather taxpayers' 
opinions on the burden associated with learning which records are 
needed, and gathering and maintaining the necessary records for the 
purpose of filing their Federal tax returns. Results of these focus 
groups will help IRS identify what they can do to decrease the burden 
of recordkeeping.
    Respondents: Individuals or households, Business or other for-
profit.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 57.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent:
    Interview, 2 hours.
    Travel time, 1 hour.
    Frequency of Response: Other.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 292 hours. [[Page 28015]] 
    Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue 
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 
20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Milo Sunderhauf (202) 395-7340, Office of Management 
and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 
20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer
[FR Doc. 95-12936 Filed 5-25-95; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE: 4830-01-P