alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Certification      of Chief Executive Officer Regarding Periodic Report Containing**

**Financial      Statements Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of      2002**

|   | **•** |  | 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 Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                Robert A. Placek                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
| **Name:******Robert A. Placek****                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
| **Title:                 **Chairman of the Board, President and********                           Chief Executive Officer (Principal********            Executive                Officer)**** |
| **Date:                 July 16, 2007**                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |

----
EXHIBIT 10.46sixty thousand dollar ($60,000) advance. The personal guarantee agreement is attached as Exhibit D(attached).DEFAULT. If BORROWER defaults in timely payment of any amount due under this NOTE, includingnon-payment upon LENDER’S demand, or is in default as a result of non-compliance with the FinancialCovenant requirements, and such default continues without cure for ten days, LENDER may pursue anylegal or equitable remedies for collection of the amounts due. BORROWER waives presentment, demandfor payment, protest, and notice of nonpayment. BORROWER agrees to pay LENDER all costs andexpenses of collection of the amounts due or to become due under this NOTE, including reasonableattorneys’ fees. Upon Lender’s declaration of a default, and Borrower’s failure to cure thedefault within ten days, the interest rate charged on this NOTE shall be the lesser of 18% perannum, or the highest rate then allowed by law.ASSIGNMENT. This NOTE and the Personal Guarantees may be assigned by LENDER to an affiliateentity, and BORROWER consents to the assignment to such an affiliated entity. Assignment to anunaffiliated entity may only be done after written consent of BORROWER.SIGNATURES. This NOTE is executed on December 19, 2005 in Spokane, Washington.DAYBREAK OIL AND GAS, INC./s/ Thomas C. Kilbourne, TreasurerWITNESS:/s/ T. HayesAccepted this                     , 2005GENESIS FINANCIAL, INC./s/ Michael A. Kirk, President/CEOWITNESS:/s/ T. Hayes
 

 
EXHIBIT 10.46Exhibit BPERSONAL GUARANTYThe undersigned, Terrence J. Dunne, jointly and severally personally and unconditionally guarantiesa portion of the warehousing credit line loan made December 19, 2005 by Genesis Financial Inc.(Lender) to Daybreak Oil and Gas, Inc. (Borrower) in the original amount of One Hundred EightyThousand Dollars ($180,000). That portion is only the initial draw against the credit line ofSixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000).Guarantor is primarily and independently liable for this portion of the debt.This is not a collateralized loan, and the Lender’s only security is the personal guarantee,therefore there are no collateral deficiencies to prove prior to calling this guarantee.This guaranty shall be in effect as long as there is an outstanding balance on the credit line.Any petition for bankruptcy by the original makers of the loan, or by the Guarantor, shall not makethis guarantee invalid or unenforceable.Guarantor and Lender hereby knowingly and voluntarily and intentionally waive the right to trial byjury of all issues related to this guaranty.This guaranty may be executed/signed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original andtogether shall constitute one in the same instrument.In witness whereof we have set our hands and seals this 19th day of December 2005.     /s/T. Hayes Witness /s/ TerrenceJ. Dunne
*

Senior U.S. Circuit Judge James C. Hill may participate in further proceedings in this matter

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(c). 

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

No. 95-8120.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Harry Leon SMITH, III, Defendant-Appellant.

April 24, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (No.

1:94-CR-149); Richard C. Freeman, Judge.

(Opinion December 5, 1996, 11th Cir., 1996, 106 F.3d 350).

Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, and TJOFLAT, ANDERSON, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH,

DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.*

BY THE COURT:

A member of this court in active service having requested a poll on whether this case should

be reheard by the Court sitting en banc, and a majority of the judges in this court in active service

having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this court en banc. The previous

panel's opinion is hereby VACATED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          14,231
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  232,870
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,544
<INVENTORY>                                    133,775
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               383,177
<PP&E>                                         268,821
<DEPRECIATION>                                 165,708
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 499,724
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          735,822
<BONDS>                                         95,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        582
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     461,002<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   499,724
<SALES>                                        922,328
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               922,328
<CGS>                                          905,122
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  905,122
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               124,575<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,480
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (132,257)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (132,957)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (132,957)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F3>
<FN>
<F1>Other SE includes Additional Paid in Capital of $335,017 and Accumulated
Deficit of $796,019.
<F2>Other Expenses include Research and Development of $78,631 and Selling,
 General and Administrative costs of $45,944.
<F3>Earning per share is not applicable.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### State Division of Human Rights, on Complaint of Kathryn McGill, Respondent-Petitioner, v Goulds Pumps, Inc., Petitioner-Respondent.

— Proceedings unanimously dismissed, without costs, upon stipulation. (Proceedings pursuant to Executive Law § 298.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.
[No. 20717-6-II.

Division Two.

October 24, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Rayen Michael Robbins, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 95-8-01066-6, Roger A. Bennett, J., entered April 9, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, C.J., concurred in by Morgan and Bridgewater, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 102 (Friday, May 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12969]



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


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Supplement 1 to Revision 1 to Generic Letter 92-01, ``Reactor 
Vessel Structural Integrity''; Issued

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of issuance.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued Supplement 1 to 
Revision 1 to Generic Letter 92-01, ``Reactor Vessel Structural 
Integrity,'' on May 19, 1995. This generic letter supplement will be 
available in the NRC Public Document Room under accession number 
9505090312. This generic letter supplement was issued on an expedited 
basis in accordance with NRC procedures. This generic letter supplement 
is discussed in Commission information paper SECY-95-118 which will 
also be available in the NRC Public Document Room.

DATES: The generic letter supplement was issued on May 19, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Not applicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edwin M. Hackett, (301) 415-2751.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Not applicable.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of May 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Brian K. Grimes,
Director, Division of Project Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-12969 Filed 5-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
Exhibit 10.41


 


FIRST AMENDMENT


 


This First Amendment is entered into this 23rd day of
February 2004, by and between Building Materials Holding Corporation, a
Delaware corporation (“Company”) and Robert E. Mellor (“Executive”).


 


RECITALS


 


A.                                   The Company and
Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated June 1, 2002 (the
“Agreement”) which provides for the employment of Executive by the Company.


 


B.                                     The compensation
policies of the Company with respect to incentive bonuses for executive
officers has changed and the parties desire to modify the Agreement to be
consistent with the compensation policies of the Company.


 


The parties hereby agree as follows effective January 1, 2004:


 


1.                                       Section 3.3(a)
and Section 3.3(b) of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide that
bonus and compensation under the LTIP shall not exceed 200% of Base Salary
respectively.


 


2.                                       All other
provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.


 


This First Amendment is effective January 1, 2004 and is dated the
date first written above.


 


	
  Company:

  	
  Executive:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Building Materials Holding Corporation

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By 

  	
  /s/  Peter S. O’Neill

  	
   

  	
  By

  	
  /s/  Robert E. Mellor

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Peter S. O’Neill

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Robert E. Mellor

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Chair of Compensation Committee
In Memoriam • L. William Seidman 13

In Memoriam • L. William Seidman

We at the FDIC were saddened by the May 13, 2009, passing of L. William (Bill) Seidman, former

FDIC and Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) Chairman. Mr. Seidman, the 14th Chairman of the

FDIC, had all the attributes of an American hero. He was a dynamic, bigger-than-life figure, yet a

plain-spoken, courageous leader with a sharp intellect.

In a life filled with achievement, Mr. Seidman distinguished himself the most during his years with

the FDIC. From 1985 to 1991, he led the Corporation through its most rigorous challenges since the

Great Depression. As FDIC Chairman, he faced a tidal wave of bank failures—more than 1,100 FDICinsured institutions in total during his tenure. As the crisis grew, Mr. Seidman strengthened the FDIC’s

hand by working with Congress and the press. Under his leadership, the FDIC met this rising tide with

a series of successful innovations.

Mr. Seidman’sskillful management of the banking crisisled Congressto deliver an additional challenge:

managing the savings and loan crisis. Having played an instrumental role in developing the legislation creating the RTC, Mr. Seidman became the RTC’s first Chairman when the agency was launched on August

9, 1989. Faced with two unfolding crises, one in the banking industry and the other in the savings and loan

industry, Mr. Seidman confronted both with courage and candor.

Mr. Seidman put his lifelong interest in education into action at the FDIC. As Chairman, he expanded training and educational programs, and the FDIC Board of Directors recognized his efforts by

dedicating a new building and campus at Virginia Square in his honor. The skills and leadership he

demonstrated during the savings and loan crisis inspire us all as we navigate today’s troubled waters.

The FDIC mourns the loss of a faithful public servant.
EXHIBIT
32.2




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 March 31, 2009,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, S. COLIN
NEILL, Chief Financial 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: May
12, 2009




By:
      /s/ S. Colin Neill




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.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                        Certification of CEO 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 on Form 10Q of Information Resources,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Joseph
P. Durrett, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

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

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



/s/ Joseph P. Durrett
------------------------------------
Joseph P. Durrett
Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2003


This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.









                                       26
#### Eleanor Weinstein, Appellant, v Myron N. Weinstein, Respondent.

— In an action, *inter alia,*to set aside a separation agreement and modify a judgment of divorce, plaintiff wife appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Berman, J.), dated March 28, 1984, which, upon defendant husband’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s allegations that she was under emotional stress during the period of time that the subject separation agreement was being negotiated and that she “was unaware of her rights and remedies and unable to make a free, intelligent and informed decision as to whether to enter into said * * * agreement” are insufficient under the circumstances of this case to state a cause of action. Here, as in *Beutel v Beutel*(55 NY2d 957, 958), during the period when the agreement was being negotiated, “plaintiff was represented by an attorney who undertook the actual negotiations. Implicitly, plaintiff’s attorney also approved the terms of the agreement and there is no contrary showing”. Plaintiff’s allegations that she was unaware of her *882rights and that she signed the agreement under duress are rebutted by the agreement’s direct acknowledgments to the contrary. Nor can it be said that the agreement is unfair or unconscionable on its face. “The court will not rewrite an agreement of separation that is regular on its face, where each party was aided by counsel throughout the negotiations and there is no showing of overreaching, fraud or duress” *(Steers v Steers,*69 AD2d 858; *Stoerchle v Stoerchle,*101 AD2d 831; *Barry v Barry,*100 AD2d 920, *affd*64 NY2d 627). “Judicial review is to be exercised circumspectly, sparingly and with a persisting view to the encouragement of parties settling their own differences in connection with the negotiation of property settlement provisions” *(Christian v Christian,*42 NY2d 63, 71-72). Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was therefore properly granted. Additionally, insofar as her allegations of duress are concerned, plaintiff must be deemed to have ratified the agreement since she accepted the benefits thereunder for nearly two years *(Beutel v Beutel, supra; Sheindlin v Sheindlin,*88 AD2d 930, *appeal dismissed*57 NY2d 775). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:15-cr-00033-TLS-SLC

)

SIDNEY CUSTER )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge

Susan Collins, on January 11, 2016, with the written consents of the Defendant, counsel for

the Defendant, and counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the Defendant under oath

on the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States

Attorney and of counsel for Defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the Defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses,
and his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that the Defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including

the effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant understands that the Sentencing

Guidelines apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some

circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by the Defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made

and is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between

the parties;

(5) that Defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the Defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for the Defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept the Defendant’s plea of guilty and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in Count 1 of the 7-count Indictment, and

have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Findings and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 11th day of January 2016.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins

United States Magistrate Judge

2
[No. 15747-4-III.

Division Three.

September 30, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Sean M. Anderson, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Chelan County, No. 96-1-00040-1, John E. Bridges, J., entered April 29, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Kurtz, J., concurred in by Schultheis, A.C.J., and Thompson, J.