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

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

The undersigned, Michael Brown, of Argentex Mining Corporation,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the annual report on Form 20-F of Argentex Mining
Corporation for the year ended January 31, 2013 (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
Argentex Mining Corporation.

Dated: April 26, 2013

|/s/ Michael Brown                   | 
|----------------------------------- | 
|Michael Brown                       | 
|President & Chief Executive Officer | 
|(Principal Executive Officer)       | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Argentex Mining
Corporation and will be retained by Argentex Mining Corporation and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
#### SMITH, Respondent, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellant.

(Supreme Court. Appellate Division, First .Department.

April 4, 1912.)

Action by William R. Smith against the Board of Education. C. McIntyre, for appellant. J. E. O’Brien, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
#### DYER et al., Respondents, v. MITCHELL, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November Term, 1897.)

Action by Richard N. Dyer and others against Roderick B. Mitchell, Jr.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
VERMONT SUPREME COURT Case No. 23-AP-379

109 State Street

Montpelier VT 05609-0801

802-828-4774

www.vermontjudiciary.org

Note: In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a crossappellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.

ENTRY ORDER

AUGUST TERM, 2024

Crissy King* v. Deborah Towslee } APPEALED FROM:

}

}

Superior Court, Bennington Unit, 

Civil Division

} CASE NO. 23-ST-00795

Trial Judge: David A. Barra

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

Plaintiff appeals a civil division order denying her request for an anti-stalking order 

against defendant. We affirm.

Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant, the former property manager of her 

apartment building, seeking an anti-stalking order. The court denied plaintiff’s request for a 

temporary order, and plaintiff requested a hearing. Following a hearing, the civil division made 

findings of fact on the record and concluded that plaintiff failed to prove her claim. The court 

accordingly denied the request. 

On appeal, plaintiff makes lengthy factual allegations regarding defendant’s behavior, 

including that defendant stalked her online and through third parties. Plaintiff contends that the 

court erred in finding that defendant’s conduct did not amount to stalking and in denying her 

request for an anti-stalking order. 

Because plaintiff did not order a transcript of the proceedings below, we are unable to 

review plaintiff’s claims.



 “By failing to order a transcript, the appellant waives the right to raise 



 Plaintiff received permission to waive the filing fee in this appeal. Her docketing 

statement indicated that no transcripts were necessary, and that she could not afford transcripts.

Plaintiff did not, however, move to use the audio recording in lieu of a written transcript. See 

V.R.A.P. 10(b)(8) (allowing party to request use of audio in lieu of written transcript if party has 

received permission to waive filing fee and proceedings did not exceed four hours). 
2

any issue for which a transcript is necessary for informed appellate review.” V.R.A.P. 10(b)(1). 

Without the transcript, we are “unable to review the evidence to determine if it supports the trial 

court’s factual findings.” Airi v. Nagra, 2017 VT 42, ¶ 5, 205 Vt. 40. Accordingly, we must 

“assume[ ] that the trial court’s findings are supported by the evidence.” Evans v. Cote, 2014 VT 

104, ¶ 7, 197 Vt. 523. Moreover, because the court’s findings were on the record, without a 

transcript, we are not able to assess whether those findings support the court’s conclusion that 

defendant’s actions did not amount to stalking. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the court 

erred in denying her request for relief. 

Affirmed.

BY THE COURT:

Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice

William D. Cohen, Associate Justice

Nancy J. Waples, Associate Justice
Exhibit 32.1
                                  ------------

                      Statement of Chief Executive Officer
         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code


Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned,
Denis A.  Krusos,  the  Chairman  of the Board and Chief  Executive  Officer  of
CopyTele, Inc., hereby certifies that:

1.       The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended April 30,
         2008 (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/ Denis A. Krusos
                                              -------------------------------
                                              Denis A. Krusos
                                              Chairman of the Board and
June 9, 2008                                  Chief Executive Officer
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Terra Nostra Resources Corp.  (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald Nicholson, President and Principal Accounting Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

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



(2)

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







Date:  April 14, 2005

By:  /s/ Donald Nicholson

Name: Donald Nicholson

Title:    President (Principal Executive Officer and Principal

Accounting Officer)
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**     I, Frank T. Sample, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Visicu, Inc. on Form 10-Kfor the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such AnnualReport on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Visicu, Inc.       Dated: March 13, 2007 By: /s/ Frank T. Sample       Frank T. Sample      President, Chief Executive Officer and      Chairman of the Board of Directors
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00357

- CR

Joseph Flores

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 372nd District Court

o f Tarrant Count y (1279885D )

October 10, 2013

P er C uriam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordere d that the appeal is dism issed

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Loral Orion, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard J. Townsend,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

/s/ Richard J. Townsend
-----------------------------------
Richard J. Townsend
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2003
#### Samuel D. BATES; Joyce M. Bates, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 09-73333.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2011.*

Filed June 7, 2011.

Samuel D. Bates, Sacramento, CA, pro se.

Joyce M. Bates, Sacramento, CA, pro se.

Janet A. Bradley, Esquire, John A. Du-deck, Jr., Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Samuel D. and Joyce M. Bates appeal pro se from the Tax Court’s decision upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of income tax deficiencies for years 2003 and 2004, and imposition of a penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6662. They also appeal from the Tax Court’s imposition of sanctions under 26 U.S.C. § 6673. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review de novo the Tax Court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its factual findings. *See*
      *768
      *Comm’r v. Dunkin,*500 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

The contention that the Bateses were not subject to federal income taxes is frivolous. *See United States v. Nelson (In re Becraft),*885 F.2d 547, 548 (9th Cir.1989) (order); Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1. No other challenges have been raised to the Tax Court’s determination of income tax deficiencies, and thus we deem them abandoned. *See Cook v. Schriro,*538 F.3d 1000, 1014 n. 5 (9th Cir.2008) (issues not raised on appeal are deemed abandoned).

The Bateses conceded they were liable for the accuracy-related penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6662 if they were subject to federal income taxes, and thus we uphold the imposition of this penalty. *See Sparkman v. Comm’r,*509 F.3d 1149, 1161 (9th Cir. 2007).

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions under 26 U.S.C. § 6673 for the Bateses’ frivolous arguments. *See Wolf v. Comm’r,*4 F.3d 709, 716 (9th Cir.1993) (standard of review).

The Bateses’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Landmark Capital Investments, Inc., Respondent, v LiShan Wang, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[941 NYS2d 144]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered December 22, 2010, awarding plaintiff the total amount of $69,211.12, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Judgment, same court (Louis Crespo, Special Ref.), entered December 22, 2010, which awarded plaintiff attorneys’ fees in the total amount of $21,489.60, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record supports the finding that defendant Wang (defendant) was properly served. The detailed description of the service attempts on defendant and of the interior of defendant’s building supported the determination that the process server was credible. Although the process server was under investigation for improper record keeping by the Department of Consumer Affairs, the relevant portions of the record support the finding that his version of facts was accurate *(cf. Matter of Barr v Department of Consumer Affairs of City of N.Y.,*70 NY2d 821 [1987]).

Elaintiff established its entitlement to judgment as a matter *419of law by relying in part on the original loan file prepared by its assignor. Plaintiff relied on these records in its regular course of its business *(see Merrill Lynch Bus. Fin. Servs. Inc. v Trataros Constr., Inc.,*30 AD3d 336, 337 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 715 [2006]). Defendant failed to raise a triable issue as to whether plaintiff was “doing business in this state without authority,” which, under Business Corporation Law § 1312 (a), would preclude it from bringing suit. Although plaintiff often purchased debt held by New York debtors, this, as an activity carried on by an Ohio company with no offices or employees in New York, is not sufficient to constitute doing business under section 1312 *(see Beltone Elecs. Corp. v Selbst,*58 AD2d 560 [1977]).

Defendant also failed to raise a triable issue on her defense of fraudulent inducement. Defendant did not allege any misstatement by the maker of the loan. Rather, she asserted that she signed the guaranty without knowing what it was, which does not constitute a defense *(see Imero Florentino Assoc. v Green,*85 AD2d 419, 420 [1982]). Nor did the court abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiff to make a second summary judgment motion correcting certain defects, where that motion clearly enhanced judicial efficiency *(see Detko v McDonald’s Rests. of N.Y.,*198 AD2d 208, 209 [1993], *lv denied*83 NY2d 752 [1994]).

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Friedman, J.P, DeGrasse, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Pei-Fong K., Respondent, v Myles M., Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 467]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Elizabeth Barnett, Attorney Ref.), entered on or about December 13, 2010, which to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, after a fact-finding hearing, granted petitioner mother a five-year order of protection in favor of the parties’ child, subject to court-ordered visitation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*676The appellant father challenges the order of protection only insofar as it applies to the child, in that he contends that his admittedly violent conduct was not directed towards her. However, Family Court Act § 827 (a) (vii) permits a finding of aggravated circumstances where a repeated pattern of physical injury and like incidents “constitute an immediate and ongoing danger to the petitioner, or any member of the petitioner’s family-”

The court properly determined that a fair preponderance of the evidence supported a finding that the father engaged in a series of violent and threatening actions directed at the mother, some in the presence of the child, warranting the order of protection. Moreover, the order permits court-ordered visitation, thus enabling the father to maintain a relationship with the child. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ.
EX-10.19



 Exhibit 10.19 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

This FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of this 1st day of November 2014 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Mattersight Corporation, a Delaware Corporation (“Mattersight”) and Richard Dresden, a resident of the State of
Illinois (the “Employee”). 
 A. Mattersight and Employee are parties to that certain Executive Employment Agreement, dated as of
February 10, 2014 (the “Agreement”), setting forth the terms and conditions of Employee’s employment with Mattersight. 

B. The parties desire to amend the Agreement as set forth herein, effective as of the Effective Date. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt,
adequacy and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 
 1. All capitalized terms used and not otherwise
defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement. 
 2. The first sentence of Section 3, Salary, is
hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 
 “For services rendered hereunder, the Company shall pay Employee a
base salary at the per annum rate of $275,000, less standard payroll deductions and withholdings, and payable in accordance with the Company’s regular payroll schedule.” 

3. The Agreement shall remain unmodified other than as expressly set forth herein and, as so modified, shall remain in full force and effect.

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Employee and a duly authorized officer of Mattersight have executed this Amendment as of the date set forth above.

  

							
	Mattersight Corporation (“Company”)				Richard Dresden (“Employee”)
				
	By:		 /s/ MARK ISERLOTH
				 /s/ RICHARD DRESDEN

				
	Title:		 Chief Financial Officer
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Northeast Area
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        
                Northeast Area Cities

                    Washington, D.C.
                            Newark, Delaware
                            Boston, Massachusetts
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BHNRC)
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BARC)
                            Frederick, Maryland
                            Orono, Maine
                            Geneva, New York
                            Ithaca, New York
                            University Park, Pennsylvania
                            Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania
                            Kearneysville, West Virginia
                            Leetown, West Virginia
                            Burlington, Vermont


                    Civil Rights & EEO Policy StatementsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Docs Outreach Diversity and EO







Research Apprenticeship Programheadline bar


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
AEE 2014 10-K-Exhibit 10.17


Exhibit 10.17




2015 BASE SALARY TABLE FOR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS


The 2015 annual base salaries of the following Named Executive Officers of Ameren Corporation (“Ameren”), Union Electric Company (“UE”) and Ameren Illinois Company (“AIC”) (which officers are  employed by Ameren and/or an Ameren subsidiary as of February 28, 2015, and were determined to the extent applicable by reference to the Ameren Proxy Statement and the UE and AIC Information Statements for the 2015 annual meetings of shareholders and by reference to the definition of “Named Executive Officer” in Item 402(a)(3) of SEC Regulation S-K) are as follows: 


	
				
	Name and Position at February 28, 2015
	2015 Base Salary
	


	Warner L. Baxter
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer – Ameren 




	$1,000,000
	


	Martin J. Lyons, Jr.
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer – Ameren, UE and AIC 


	

	$612,000
	


	Michael L. Moehn
Chairman and President – UE 
	

	$500,000
	


	Charles D. Naslund(1) 
Executive Vice President, Corporate Operations Oversight – Ameren Services Company and UE 


	

	$490,000
	


	Richard J. Mark
Chairman and President – AIC


	

	$470,000
	


	Gregory L. Nelson
Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary – Ameren, UE and AIC


	

	$467,500
	


	Daniel F. Cole
Chairman and President – Ameren Services Company 


	

	$439,000
	


	Fadi M. Diya
Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer – UE 
	

	$430,000
	


	Bruce A. Steinke
Senior Vice President, Finance, and Chief Accounting Officer – Ameren, UE and AIC


	

	$345,000
	





(1) Effective March 1, 2015, Mr. Naslund retired from his position of Executive Vice President, Corporate Operations Oversight, Ameren Services Company and UE.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



In connection with this Annual Report of Hewitt Associates, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that: 1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                        |  |     |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 18, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Dale L. Gifford    
|                        |  |     |  | Dale L. Gifford        
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to
Hewitt Associates, Inc. and will be retained by Hewitt Associates, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as and exhibit to the Form 10-K and shall not be considered filed as part
of the Form 10-K.