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

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

In connection with the annual report of Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



/s/
Joseph R. Tomkinson
Joseph R. Tomkinson
Chief Executive Officer
March 15, 2006

/s/
Richard J. Johnson
Richard J. Johnson
Chief Financial Officer
March 15, 2006

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

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.2

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

|   | Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I hereby certify that: |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | I have reviewed the Annual Report on Form 10-K; |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|

 

to the best of my knowledge, this Annual Report on Form 10-K (i) fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d); and (ii) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Tengasco, Inc. and its subsidiaries during the period covered by this Report.

 

Dated: March 27, 2007

 

|   | s/Mark A. Ruth |
|--------|----------------|

|   | Mark A. Ruth, |
|--------|---------------|

|   | Principal Financial and Accounting Officer |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
#### SINGLETON V. THE STATE.

*Habeas Corpus.*

(Decided June 30, 1906.

42 South. 23.)

Appeal from Pike Probate Court.

Heard before Hon. A. C. Edmondson,

No counsel for áppellant:

Massey Wilson, Attorney General, for State.

Affirmed.

Opinion by

Anderson, J.

Weakley, C. J., Tyson and Simpson, JJ., concur.
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
 Livestock, Forage and Pasture Management Research Unit: El Reno, OK
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area El Reno, Oklahoma Oklahoma and Central Plains Agricultural Research Center Livestock, Forage and Pasture Management Research Unit People & Locations







Patrick Shane Russell
                        Livestock, Forage and Pasture Management Research Unit

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Aid
                        Phone: (405) 262-5291
                        
                        
                        Fax: (405) 262-0133(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1274

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from using the threat of audit to compel agreement with

the Tip Reporting Alternative Commitment or the Tip Rate Determination Agreement.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 8, 1997

Mr. CAMPBELL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit

the Internal Revenue Service from using the threat of

audit to compel agreement with the Tip Reporting Alternative Commitment or the Tip Rate Determination

Agreement.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

4 Congress finds that—

5 (1) the Tip Reporting Alternative Commitment

6 Agreement and the Tip Rate Determination Agree7 ment are voluntary agreements developed by the In-
2

•S 1274 IS

1 ternal Revenue Service and the restaurant industry

2 as a means of improving the reporting of tip income;

3 (2) there have been reports that the Internal

4 Revenue Service may be compelling members of the

5 restaurant industry to accept such voluntary agree6 ment by using the possibility of audit to intimidate;

7 and

8 (3) the Internal Revenue Service has the au9 thority to perform audits to assure taxpayer compli10 ance with the internal revenue laws.

11 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USING THE THREAT OF AUDIT TO

12 COMPEL AGREEMENT WITH THE TIP RE13 PORTING ALTERNATIVE COMMITMENT.

14 Section 7602 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

15 (relating to examination of books and witnesses) is amend16 ed by adding at the end the following new subsection:

17 ‘‘(d) NO THREAT OF SUMMONS OR EXAMINATIONS

18 TO COMPEL AGREEMENT WITH TIP REPORTING ALTER19 NATIVE COMMITMENT OR THE TIP RATE DETERMINA20 TION AGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall not use the

21 threat of making an examination or issuing a summons

22 under subsection (a) to compel a taxpayer to agree to or

23 sign the Tip Reporting Alternative Commitment Agree-
3

•S 1274 IS

1 ment (TRAC) or the Tip Rate Determination Agreement

2 (TRDA).’’

Æ
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-17-00378-CR

Gerald Angel Olveda MOTA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR9430

Honorable Steve Hilbig, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 26, 2017

DISMISSED 

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states “this criminal case is a plea-bargain case, and 

the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, and the 

punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by 

the defendant; Rule 25.2(a)(2) applies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). 

This court must dismiss this appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of 

appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” Id. R. 25.2(d); see Chavez v. State, 183 

S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 
04-17-00378-CR

- 2 -

On June 16, 2017, we notified Appellant that this appeal would be dismissed under Rule 

25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification showing that Appellant has the right of appeal was 

made part of the appellate record by July 17, 2017. See TEX. R.APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; see also Dears 

v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174, 176 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). 

On July 17, 2017, Appellant’s court-appointed counsel, John J. Ritenour Jr., filed a response 

stating that counsel had reviewed the record, and counsel conceded that this court must dismiss this 

appeal. 

Given Rule 25.2(d)’s requirements, the record, and Appellant’s response, we dismiss this 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 613.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,047
<SECURITIES>                                     2,924
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,402
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,461
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         644,217
<DEPRECIATION>                                (56,257)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 666,386
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        386,774
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          4
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                     184,021
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   666,386
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,489
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,421
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,170
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,549
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (990)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (990)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (990)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.30)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10(o) (vi)





Approved by Board December 18, 2009

 Excerpt from Corporate Governance Guidelines describing director compensation:

 Directors who are not employees of the Company are compensated for their services by fees in cash and stock. All directors are reimbursed for expenses incurred in connection with such services. In addition, the Company provides travel and liability insurance to all directors.

 Currently, directors' fees are as follows:

 Annual Retainer:

 Directors receive a $95,000 annual retainer. $50,000 of the annual retainer is received in shares of Class A Common Stock of the Company pursuant to the Directors' Annual Retainer Plan approved by the Board in February 2009 and by the stockholders of the Company in May 2009.

 Share Ownership Guidelines:

 The Board has adopted share ownership guidelines for the Chief Executive Officer and the Board. Under these guidelines, directors are generally expected to retain ownership of shares of Common Stock awarded or acquired until an ownership equal to three (3) times the annual cash and stock retainer is attained. A director who has attained this level may elect to receive in cash all or a portion of a retainer payment otherwise payable in shares of Common Stock.

 Meeting Fees:

 In lieu of meeting fees, each director who is not a member of the Audit Committee receives an additional annual retainer of $25,000. Effective for the term of Board service commencing on the date of the Annual Meeting in 2010, all of such annual retainer shall be paid in cash. In lieu of meeting fees, each director who is a member of the Audit Committee receives an additional annual retainer of $30,000. Effective for the term of Board service commencing on the date of the Annual Meeting in 2010, all of such annual retainer shall be paid in cash.

 Directors receive cash fees of $1,500 for each special meeting of the Board and $1,000 for each special meeting of a committee that they attend in person or by telephone. Directors receive $750 for their participation in each special meeting of the Board or a committee that is designated as a telephone meeting. The special meeting fees received by a director for any one day may not exceed $2,500.

 Other Fees:

 The Chairman of each standing committee, other than the Audit Committee, receives an annual fee of $5,000 for such service. The Chairman of the Audit Committee receives an annual fee of $10,000 for such service. The Chairman of the Board receives an annual fee of $50,000 for such service. The Vice Chairman of the Board receives an annual fee of $25,000 for such service. Directors receive $1,500 for each day that they are engaged in Company business (other than attendance at Board or committee meetings) at the request of the Chairman of the Board or the Chief Executive Officer.
EXHIBIT 32

                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 American Southwest  Holdings,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending  December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission (the Report),  I, Alan Doyle,  President
(Chief Executive  Officer) and Treasurer  (Principal  Financial  Officer) of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the report fully complies
with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

Date:  May 21, 2004



/s/ Alan Doyle
---------------------------------------
Alan Doyle
President (Chief Executive Officer) and
Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         124,115
<SECURITIES>                                    16,549
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,732
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,343
<INVENTORY>                                     13,166
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               167,527
<PP&E>                                          15,603
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,357
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 180,366
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,254
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       130,834
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,938
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   180,366
<SALES>                                         90,977
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                90,977
<CGS>                                           52,540
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,107
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   358
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,133
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,918
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,215
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,215
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.56


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of BROTMAN MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Debtor, Prime Healthcare Services, LLC, Appellant, v. Brotman Medical Center, Inc., Appellee.

No. 09-56907.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 9, 2011.

Filed July 13, 2011.

Mark Edward Bradshaw, Esquire, Leonard M. Shulman, Shulman Hodges & Bastían LLP, Foothill Ranch, CA, for Appellant.

David Adam Fidler, Esquire, David Matthew Guess, Thomas Earle Patterson, Esquire, Counsel, Courtney Pozmantier, Klee, Tuchin, Bogadnoff & Stern LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee.

Before: B. FLETCHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, Senior District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Rudi M. Brewster, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Southern California, San Diego, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

We affirm the judgment of the district court that Prime Healthcare Services, LLC’s appeal of the confirmation order is equitably moot. Here, the substantial consummation of the reorganization plan is a “comprehensive change of circumstances” which makes granting the relief sought inequitable. *See Focus Media v. Nat’l Broadcasting Co.,*378 F.3d 916, 923 (9th *318Cir.2004). Requiring Brotman Medical Center, Inc. to pay Prime Healthcare an additional sum of money would unjustly affect the rights of other creditors and investors, particularly Brotmaris shareholders, whose equity interests would be placed below Prime Healthcare’s claim. Because allowing Prime Healthcare to contest the now-consummated reorganization plan “would knock the props out from under the authorization for every transaction that has taken place,” *In re Roberts Farms, Inc.,*652 F.2d 798, 797 (9th Cir.1981), we affirm.1

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. Brotman’s unopposed Motion for Judicial Notice is granted.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 15.01

August 11, 2004

To the Board of Directors and Stockholder of
Hartford Life, Inc.
Hartford, Connecticut

We have made a review, in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim financial
information of Hartford Life, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") for the
periods ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, as indicated in our report dated August
11, 2004; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that
information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the second quarter ended June 30,
2004, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-28805 and
333-28807 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-21865 and 333-56283 on
Form S-3.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Hartford, Connecticut

                                       43
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOSHUA STRAYHORN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 20 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of June, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
       
<S>                                    <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                          SEP-1-1995
<PERIOD-END>                            AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<CASH>                                    2,387,691
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                               108,024
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                 141,903
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          2,787,906
<PP&E>                                      254,604
<DEPRECIATION>                               61,994
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            3,301,284
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       524,479
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                  9,560,131
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                               (8,192,111)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              3,301,284
<SALES>                                      10,025
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            108,025
<CGS>                                        50,314
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                50,314
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           83,751
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (2,916,791)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (2,916,791)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                             (2,916,791)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (1.72)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (1.72)
        




</TABLE>