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

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of National Mercantile Bancorp (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Scott A. Montgomery, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

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

 

 
|                             | /s/  SCOTT A. MONTGOMERY |   |
|----------------------------------|-------------------------------|--------|
|                             | Scott A. Montgomery           |
|                             | Chief Executive Officer       |
|                             |                          |
|                             |                          |
| Date:  August 16, 2004 |                          |

 

1

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:15-cr-21-TLS-SLC

)

JOSEPH R. HOLMAN )

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 Susan

Collins, on November 9, 2015, 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 the single-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 9th day of November 2015.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins

United States Magistrate Judge

2
[No. 39737-1-I.

Division One.

October 6, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Basil Verne Stubblefield, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 95-1-01843-7, Richard J. Thorpe, J., entered October 17, 1996. *Reversed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
#### Danilo Mihajlovic, Respondent, v Rodolfo M. Cuenca et al., Appellants.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gammerman, J.), entered February 23, 1984, and judgment entered thereon on March 7, 1984, denying that part of the defendants’ motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, affirmed, without costs, and without prejudice to renewal of the motion for summary judgment after completion of discovery.

In denying the motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, essentially seeking damages for allegedly fraudulent misrepresentation, Special Term observed that plaintiff should have an opportunity for discovery. The order thereafter entered did not explicitly embody that aspect of Special Term’s determination. Accordingly, in affirming, we do so without prejudice to renewal after plaintiff has had the opportunity for discovery. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan and Fein, JJ.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 8, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D20-1520 Lower Tribunal No. 19-8931

________________ 

### Lamar Mitchell , Appellant,
vs. 

### Miami-Dade County , Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alan Fine, Judge. Morgan & Morgan, and Brian J. Lee (Jacksonville), for appellant. Geraldine Bonzon-Keenan, Miami-Dade County Attorney, and Daniel Frastai, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and SCALES, and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
# L_2008011EN.01000801.xml

| 15.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 11/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 11/8

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 20 December 2007

appointing a German member and a German alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

(2008/45/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the German Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 24 January 2006 the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 24 January 2006 the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1).

| (2) | A seat as a member of the Committee of the Regions has fallen vacant following the resignation of Ms Emilia MÜLLER. A seat as an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions has fallen vacant following the resignation of Mr Edmund STOIBER, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A seat as a member of the Committee of the Regions has fallen vacant following the resignation of Ms Emilia MÜLLER. A seat as an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions has fallen vacant following the resignation of Mr Edmund STOIBER,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which ends on 25 January 2010:

| (a) | as a member:
  Mr Markus SÖDER, Minister of State for Federal and European Affairs in the State Chancellery of Bavaria,
  and |
| --- | --- |

(a)

as a member:

Mr Markus SÖDER, Minister of State for Federal and European Affairs in the State Chancellery of Bavaria,

and

| (b) | as an alternate member:
  Mr Günther BECKSTEIN, First Minister of Bavaria. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

as an alternate member:

Mr Günther BECKSTEIN, First Minister of Bavaria.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 20 December 2007.

For the Council

The President

F. NUNES CORREIA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 56, 25.2.2006, p. 75.

1

---
----

**CONSENT OF AUTHOR**

Derek Barratt, P.Eng.  427 Silverdale Place  North Vancouver, British Columbia   Canada V7N 2Z6   Email: ddbarratt@uniserve.com

US Securities and Exchange Commission

I, Derek Barratt, P.Eng., certify that I have read the written  disclosure being filed and I do not have any reason to believe that there are  any misrepresentations in the information derived from the Technical Report  or that the written disclosure in the Form 20F of Northern Dynasty Minerals  Ltd. contains any misrepresentation of the information contained in Technical  Report “Preliminary Assessment of the Pebble Gold-Copper-Molybdenum Project”  dated November 3, 2004.

I do hereby consent to the filing with the regulatory authorities.

  Dated this 21st day of March, 2005.

*/s/ Derek Barratt*  Derek Barratt, P.Eng. 

----
#### Christopher W. HARRISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Fred M. MOORE, Physician Assistant; Susie Barksdale, Facility Nurse Manager; Lisa Curry, Staff Nurse; Brenda Pittman, Staff Nurse; Xavier King, Lieutenant; Donya Hartsfield, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appel-lees.

No. 04-41239.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 24, 2006.

*342Christopher Wayne Harrison, Tennessee Colony, TX, pro se.

Maurice Lynn Taylor, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Wayne Harrison, Texas prisoner # 725493, filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit to seek redress for the defendants’ alleged indifference to his serious medical needs. Harrison argues that the magistrate judge erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and in determining that they were entitled to qualified immunity. He contends that over a four-day period in June 2002, the defendants prevented or delayed his receipt of medical attention, ignored his complaints of pain and vomiting, and mis-diag-nosed and mis-treated his condition.

The summary judgment evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Harrison, shows that Harrison unquestionably suffered from a serious medical condition. Harrison, however, was treated over the four-day period for the conditions about which he complained. There is nothing in the summary judgment evidence from which it could be inferred that the defendants concluded from Harrison’s complaints of fever, stomach pain, vomiting, and leg pain that he had a serious medical condition and, knowing this, that they ignored his complaints, refused to provide him with care, or deliberately mistreated him. *See Domino v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice,*239 F.3d 752, 755-56 (5th Cir.2001). “Deliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to meet.” *Id.*At most, the summary judgement evidence shows negligence, malpractice, and that Harrison disagreed with the medical treatment he received. This is insufficient to show deliberate indifference. *See id.; Banuelos v. McFarland,*41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir.1995); *Varnado v. Lynaugh,*920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.1991). Harrison’s argument that the district court should not have granted summary judgment in the absence of affidavits is unavailing. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Harrison’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
# C_2008228EN.01000101.xml

| 5.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5193 — Schlumberger/First Reserve/Saxon)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 228/01)

On 11 August 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5193. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5193. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
EXHIBIT 10.81


 


January 5,
2004


 


Jeffrey A. Bialosky


c/o Russ Berrie and Company,
Inc.


111 Bauer Drive


Oakland, New Jersey  07436


 


Dear Jeff:


 


As you know,
the Board of Directors of the Company has authorized the exploration of a
possible sale of or other major corporate transaction involving the Company,
although no decision to effect such a transaction has been made and there can
be no assurance that it will occur or as to the timing thereof.


 


The Board of
Directors believes that your continued service as an executive and effective
participation in the exploration of a possible sale is important to the
Company.  Accordingly, the Board of
Directors has determined that if the Company consummates a Change in Control,
as defined in the Company’s Change in Control Severance Plan, on or before
April 30, 2004, and you remain employed by the Company through the consummation
of that Change in Control, you will be awarded a special bonus of
$100,000.  (If for any reason you are
not employed by the Company when the Change in Control is consummated, you will
not be entitled to any payment under this letter.)


 


The bonus
contemplated above is in addition to any other compensation to which you may be
entitled from the Company.  Nothing in
this letter alters any of the terms of your employment with the Company or
creates any obligation on the part of the Company to retain you as an
employee.  This letter supercedes the
letter to you, dated July 2, 2003, a copy of which is attached hereto, which
letter shall be of no further force or effect.


 


	
   

  	
  Very truly
  yours,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ ANGELICA
  BERRIE

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Angelica
  Berrie

  
	
   

  	
  Chief
  Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1984 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1984

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the low-income 
        housing credit for certain buildings in high cost areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 2005

 Mr. Gerlach introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the low-income 
        housing credit for certain buildings in high cost areas.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF LOW-INCOME HOUSING CREDIT FOR CERTAIN BUILDINGS 
              IN HIGH COST AREAS.

    (a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 42(d)(5)(C) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to increase in credit for buildings in 
high cost areas) is amended to read as follows:
                            ``(i) In general.--In the case of any 
                        building located in a qualified census tract or 
                        difficult development area, or in the case of 
                        any building that provides a community service 
                        facility and is located within 1000 feet of a 
                        qualified census tract, which is designated for 
                        purposes of this subparagraph--
                                    ``(I) in the case of a new 
                                building, the eligible basis of such 
                                building shall be 130 percent of such 
                                basis determined without regard to this 
                                subparagraph, and
                                    ``(II) in the case of an existing 
                                building, the rehabilitation 
                                expenditures taken into account under 
                                subsection (e) shall be 130 percent of 
                                such expenditures determined without 
                                regard to this subparagraph.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to--
            (1) housing credit dollar amounts allocated after December 
        31, 2004, and
            (2) buildings placed in service after such date to the 
        extent paragraph (1) of section 42(h) of the Internal Revenue 
        Code of 1986 does not apply to any building by reason of 
        paragraph (4) thereof, but only with respect to bonds issued 
        after such date.
                                 <all>
```
#### In re MORRISON et al. In the matter of the application of Roderick Morrison and another to discontinue a highway in the town of Bethel.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 15, 1898.)

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
#### Nab-Tern Constructors, Respondent, v City of New York (Yankee Stadium), Appellant. City of New York, Third-Party Plaintiff, v URS Corporation et al., Third-Party Defendants. City of New York, Third-Party Plaintiff, v Argonaut Insurance Company, as Completing Surety for Gotham Equipment Corp., Third-Party Defendant.

Order of the Supreme *57Court, New York County (Allen M. Myers, J.), entered July 17, 1984 and resettled by said court on December 20,1984, denying defendant city’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action and granting plaintiff’s cross motion to amend the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, the city’s motion granted and the cross motion denied, all without costs.

Plaintiff, a joint venture, brought action against the city to recover damages arising out of the reconstruction of Yankee Stadium. Plaintiff, a general contractor for the reconstruction job, entered into a contract which provided: “The contractor agrees to make no claim for damages for delay in the performance of this contract occasioned by *any*act or omission to act of the City or any of its representatives, and agrees that any such claim shall be fully compensated for by an extension of time to complete performance of the work as provided herein” (emphasis added).

By summons and complaint dated in April 1978, plaintiff commenced this action. The complaint contains five causes of action. The fourth cause, the only one with which we are here concerned, deals with delay damages. Approximately $5.75 million is sought. The city moved for partial summary judgment dismissing this cause. Plaintiff cross-moved for leave to serve an amended complaint. Special Term denied the motion and granted the cross motion.

We think this was error. The exculpatory clause is in precisely the same language as that involved in *Kalisch-Jarcho, Inc. v City of New York*(58 NY2d 377). The Court of Appeals held the provision operable and binding except in cases of intentional wrongdoing. “This can be explicit, as when it is fraudulent, malicious or prompted by the sinister intention of one acting in bad faith. Or, when, as in gross negligence, it betokens a reckless indifference to the rights of others, it may be implicit” (p 385).

Since there is here no showing of fraud, malice, bad faith, intentional wrongdoing or gross negligence, we are of the opinion that partial summary judgment should have been granted. Although the required language is contained in the proposed amended cause, renumbered the third cause of action, the factual allegations set forth in the affidavits are woefully inadequate to make out the charge.

Since we are of the opinion that the facts set forth are insufficient to support the charge, we find the granting of the cross motion pointless. Accordingly, we deny leave to amend. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Bloom, Milonas and Rosenberger, JJ.