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

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER AND**

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Eachof the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, inhis capacity as an officer of Force Protection, Inc. (the “Company”),that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2010, fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. § 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in such reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.  Thiswritten statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionas an exhibit to such Form 10-Q. A signed original of this statement hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| Date:  August 3, 2010 | /s/ MICHAEL MOODY                                    |
|----------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                       | **Michael Moody**                                    |
|                       | **Chairman, Chief Executive Officer  and President** |
|                       |                                                 |
| Date:  August 3, 2010 | /s/ CHARLES MATHIS                                   |
|                       | **Charles Mathis**                                   |
|                       | **Chief Financial Officer**                          |

 

 

Thisexhibit shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of thatSection, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filings underthe Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether madebefore or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporationlanguage in any filings.

 

----
<TABLE>
<S>           <C>            <C>           <C>          <C>       <C>        <C>


                                                                                                                       EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Unified Financial Services, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report"), I, Thomas G. Napurano, 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 to the best of my 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/ Thomas G. Napurano
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------
                                                     Thomas G. Napurano, Chief Financial Officer of
                                                     Unified Financial Services, Inc.

                                                     November 8, 2002


         This certificate accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 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 Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

</TABLE>
#### Stephen Nichols, Appellant, v Marie Hack, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[947 NYS2d 273]

Appeal from a second amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David Michael Barry, J.), entered June 24, 2011. The second amended judgment dismissed the complaint upon a jury verdict.

It is hereby ordered that the second amended judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from a second amended judgment that dismissed his complaint for malicious prosecution after the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant, plaintiff contends, inter alia, that Supreme Court erred in admitting testimony that defendant consulted with an attorney prior to filing a harassment charge against plaintiff and in giving a jury charge addressing reliance on the advice of counsel in the context of a malicious prosecution action. We reject plaintiffs contentions. Whether a defendant in a malicious prosecution action is required to plead reliance on the advice of counsel “as an affirmative defense turns on the particular circumstances of each case and is a matter within the sound discretion of the [trial] court” *(Edwards v New York City Tr. Auth.,*37 AD3d 157, 158 [2007]). Here, the court properly exercised its discretion in admitting testimony regarding defendant’s consultation with an attorney. Moreover, it is apparent on this record that plaintiff knew that defendant had conferred with an attorney prior to filing a harassment charge against him and, thus, there was no chance that the failure to plead reliance on the advice of counsel took plaintiff “by surprise” (CPLR 3018 [b]). In addition, the testimony of defendant and the attorney with whom she consulted prior to filing a harassment charge was sufficient to support the court’s decision to instruct the jury regarding defendant’s assertion that she had relied on the advice of counsel *(see*PJI 3:50.3). We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Sconiers, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Nos. 333-20165, 333-20167, 333-64083, 333-68176, and 333-152573 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 12, 2009, relating to (1) the 2008 and 2007 financial statements and financial statement schedulesand the retrospective adjustments to the 2006 financial statements and financial statement disclosures of Northwest Pipe Company and subsidiaries (the “Company”) which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatoryparagraph regarding the retrospective adjustments to the 2006 consolidated financial statements for the change in the segments of the Company discussed in Note 16 and (2) the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting as of December 31, 2008, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Northwest Pipe Company and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2008. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Portland, Oregon 

March 12, 2009
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 Quarterly Report of Docucorp International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the three months ended October 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Michael D. Andereck, President and Chief Executive 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:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or
          15 (d) of the Securities and 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/ Michael D. Andereck
--------------------------------------------------

Michael D. Andereck
President and Chief Executive Officer
December 16, 2002
#### Alfred T. Lee, Appellant, v George Weinstein, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

In a defamation action, plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), entered June 11, 1984, which granted defendant Weinstein’s motion for summary judgment, denied plaintiff’s cross motion to compel discovery, and dismissed his complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered July 5, 1984, thereon.

Appeal from the order dismissed *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

*701Judgment affirmed.

Defendant Weinstein is awarded one bill of costs.

As plaintiff concedes in his brief, the alleged libel was communicated by defendant Weinstein (upon a subject in which his client had a financial interest) to the custodian of his client’s financial assets, and, as such, the communication is cloaked with a qualified common-interest privilege *(see, e.g., Friedman v Ergin,*110 AD2d 620, *affd*66 NY2d 645). To overcome this privilege, it was necessary for plaintiff to make an evidentiary showing that the alleged defamatory statements were written with actual malice, which is defined as personal spite, ill will or culpable recklessness or negligence *(see, e.g., Konowitz v Archway School,*65 AD2d 752; *Shapiro v Health Ins. Plan,*7 NY2d 56, 61). As the one opposing a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff could only meet this burden by an evidentiary showing in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of material issues of fact on the issue of actual malice *(see, e.g., Dano v Royal Globe Ins. Co.,*59 NY2d 827, 829). Proof of falsity alone is insufficient *(Radish v Dressner,*86 AD2d 622; *Friedman v Ergin, supra).*Nor are mere conclusory allegations or bald assertions of fact, absent documentary corroboration, sufficient to meet this burden *(see, e.g., Shapiro v Health Ins. Plan, supra; Kadish v Dressner, supra; Green v Kinsella,*36 AD2d 677). Plaintiff utterly failed to provide evidentiary support for his claim of actual malice beyond such bald conclusory allegations. At most plaintiff has cast suspicion upon defendant Weinstein’s motives but "suspicion, surmise and accusation are not enough” *(Klein v Prial,*32 AD2d 925, 926, *affd*28 NY2d 506). Nor was defendant Weinstein’s letter "so extravagant or so vituperative in its character as to justify an inference of malice” *(Mercedes-Benz of N. Am. v Finberg,*58 AD2d 808, 809; *see also, Vacca v General Elec. Credit Corp.,*88 AD2d 740; *Green v Kinsella, supra).*

Plaintiff’s cross motion did not raise more than a hypothetical hope that continued discovery would reveal the evidentiary support required. Consequently, Special Term did not err in denying plaintiff’s cross motion *(see, e.g., Dano v Royal Globe Ins. Co., supra; Harris v Alcan Aluminum Corp.,*91 AD2d 830, *affd*58 NY2d 1036). Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.2

                    FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                         WITH SILVERLEAF RESORTS, INC.




         THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the "First Agreement")
is made between SILVERLEAF RESORTS, INC., a Texas corporation ("Silverleaf"),
and SHARON K. BRAYFIELD (the "Employee").


                                R E C I T A L S:

         A.      Employee and Silverleaf have previously entered into that
                 certain Employment Agreement between them, dated effective as
                 of January 1, 1997 (the "Employment Agreement"); and

         B.      Silverleaf and Employee now desire to amend certain provisions
                 of the Employment Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and terms hereinafter
set forth, the parties agree as follows:


                               A G R E E M E N T:

         SECTION 1.       AMENDMENT OF BASE COMPENSATION.  Effective as of the
Effective Date of this First Amendment, Employee's base compensation under
Section 3(a) of the Employment Agreement is amended to provide for base
compensation computed at the annual rate of FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND
AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($435,000).

         SECTION 2.       AMENDMENT OF ADDITIONAL INCENTIVE COMPENSATION.
Effective as of the Effective Date of this First Amendment, Employee's
additional weekly incentive compensation under Section 3(b) of the Employment
Agreement is amended to reduce the percentage of net sales described therein to
125/1,000ths percent (0.125%).

         SECTION 3.       RATIFICATION.  Except as amended by this First
Amendment, Silverleaf and Employee hereby ratify and confirm in all respects
the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement.
<PAGE>   2
         SECTION 4.       EFFECTIVE DATE.  This Amendment is executed on the
date set forth below, but shall be effective as of July 1, 1998 (the "Effective
Date").
   
         Executed this 31st day of July, 1998.

                                        "SILVERLEAF"

                                        SILVERLEAF RESORTS, INC.



                                        By: /s/ ROBERT E. MEAD
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           Robert E. Mead, Chief Executive 
                                           Officer


                                        "EMPLOYEE"

                                        /s/ SHARON K. BRAYFIELD
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        SHARON K. BRAYFIELD



                                      2
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 69 Filed: 05/19/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:415
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 69 Filed: 05/19/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:416
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
 Plant Genetics Research: Columbia, MO
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Columbia, Missouri Plant Genetics Research People & Locations







Heidi  Liu
                        Plant Genetics Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Technician (Plants)
                        Phone: (573) 882-5209
                        
                        
                        Fax: (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
Case: 1:02-cv-06376 Document #: 190 Filed: 11/13/03 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1216
#### State of New York ex rel. Gary Greenwald, Esq., on Behalf of Anna Gristina, Appellant, v Dora B. Schriro, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 881]

*524Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), entered on or about April 12, 2012, denying petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissing the petition seeking a reduction of bail previously set in the amount of $2 million bond or $1 million cash (Juan M. Merchan, J.), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the writ granted to the extent of reducing the bail to $250,000, which may be posted in the form of an insurance company bail bond in that sum or by depositing the sum of $125,000 as a cash bail alternative, on the conditions that petitioner surrender any and all passports she may have to the Office of the District Attorney of New York County and is prohibited from applying for any new or replacement passports, and that petitioner arrange for electronic monitoring at her expense and wear an electronic monitoring device upon her release.

After reviewing the entire record and considering the factors set forth in CPL 510.30 (2) (a), we find that the amount of bail set by the trial court was unreasonable and an abuse of discretion, and that, taking into account the risk of petitioner’s flight, bail in the reduced amount indicated is sufficient to ensure petitioner’s attendance *(see e.g. People ex rel. Robinson v Warden,*135 AD2d 421 [1987]). Among other factors, we note that notwithstanding the notoriety of this case, petitioner is charged with a class D, nonviolent felony and she has no criminal record. In addition, she is a long-term resident of Orange County, is married, and is the mother of four children, including a nine-year-old child, who are United States citizens. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Roman, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              5
       
<S>                                            <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                               SEP-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    12-MOS
<CASH>                                          256,234
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     4,905
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                     189,121
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                556,709
<PP&E>                                          676,959
<DEPRECIATION>                                  422,779
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                1,112,765
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         1,177,429
<BONDS>                                               0
<COMMON>                                     11,271,689
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                   1,393,889
<OTHER-SE>                                 (12,901,884)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  1,112,765
<SALES>                                          20,985
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              1,075,399
<CGS>                                             9,357
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     9,357
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               59,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,780,464)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,780,464)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,780,464)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.71)
        



</TABLE>
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
 Columbia Plateau Conservation Research Center: Pendleton, OR
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Related TopicsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Pendleton, Oregon Columbia Plateau Conservation Research Center People & Locations







Christopher  Burgess
                        Columbia Plateau Conservation Research Center

                        




                        
                        Bioinformaticist
                        Phone: (541) 278-4418
                        
                        
                        Fax: (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