alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.1  Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Sanofi, a French société anonyme (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:  The annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the Form 20-F) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: March 6, 2014  By:
/s/   Christopher ViehbacherChristopher   ViehbacherChief   Executive Officer (1)  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sanofi and will be retained by Sanofi and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  
 (1)Principal executive officer.
#### SANDERS v. HURLBURT (two cases).

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

October 2, 1896.)

Actions by Barent B. Sanders against Kate Bleeeker Hurlburt.

No opinion. Order staying respondent’s proceedings vacated, with $10 costs and disbursements. Motion to dismiss appeals denied, without costs to either party.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          38,178
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,181
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,445
<PP&E>                                         295,332
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,229
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 342,311
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,821
<BONDS>                                        114,703
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           182
<OTHER-SE>                                     180,514
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   342,311
<SALES>                                         44,177
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,177
<CGS>                                           40,405
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,405
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 568
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,306
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,810
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,496
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (338)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,158
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1267

ALEXANDER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; MCSHEA MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED, Plaintiffs – Appellees,

v.
RAHEEM MUHAMMAD, Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:09-cv-00132-DKC)

Submitted: November 5, 2009 Decided: December 17, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raheem Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Bernard McParland, BREGMAN BERBERT SCHWARTZ AND GILDAY, LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Raheem Muhammad seeks to appeal the district court’s order remanding this case back to state court. Because the remand order was based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, we conclude we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006); Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca , 516 U.S. 124, 127-28 (1995); Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors
Chassis, Inc. , 519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2008); Borneman v.

United States , 213 F.3d 819, 824-25 (4th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
----

**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 I, John Hromyk, certify that: 

 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of  Coventure International Inc.; 

 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any  untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary  to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such  statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this  report; 

 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other  financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material  respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the  registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))  for the registrant and have: 

 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused  such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision,  to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its  consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,  particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure  controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the  effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the  period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s  internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s  most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the  case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely  to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial  reporting; and 

 5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of  internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors  and the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent  functions): 

 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in  the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are  reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,  process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management  or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal  control over financial reporting. 

Date: November 12, 2004

/s/ John Hromyk                                            John Hromyk   Chief Executive Officer/Chief Financial Officer 

----
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
§ 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO § 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Active Power, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, David S. Gino, Chief Financial 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, to 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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ David S. GinoDavid S. GinoVice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Accounting Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) October 23, 2003
Specimen of Certificate


 Exhibit 4.3 

 

 

 To: 
  

					
		 		 	Register Enquiries to:
			
		 		 	 Capita Registrars (Ireland) Limited
 P.O. Box 7117, Dublin 2, Ireland
 Telephone +353 1 810 2400
 Facsimile +353 1 810 2422
 E-mail: enquiries@capitaregistrars.ie
 Website: www.capitaregistrars.ie

			
		 		 	 The attached certificate has been prepared and
 forwarded to you by reason of:


  

											
	 Certificate Number
	 	 Bargain Number
	 	 Firm Code
	 	 Transfer Number
	 	 Registration Date
	 	 Number of Shares

		 		 		 		 		 	


 

 

 (Incorporated in Ireland under the Companies Acts, 1963 to 2009. Registered in Dublin, No. 12965)

 Ordinary Shares of €0.32 each 
 This is to certify that 
 is/are the registered holder(s) of 
  

			
		 	 Fully paid Ordinary Shares of €0.32 each
 in CRH plc subject to the Memorandum and
 Articles of Association of the
Company.


 Given under Seal of the Company at the registration date shown above. 
 NOTE: 
 This certificate must be
presented at the Registrar’s Office, 
 Capita Registrars (Ireland) Limited, 
 P.O. Box 7117, Dublin 2, Ireland, 
 before any transfer of the whole or any part of the Shares 
 comprised in it can be
registered.
exv10w2






EXHIBIT 10.2




RESTATED SIXTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

(EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 25, 2010)




          This is the Restated Sixth Amendment to the Employment Agreement (“Agreement”) between Lindsay
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“LINDSAY”) and Richard W. Parod (“PAROD”), which was entered
into on March 8, 2000, and under which PAROD commenced employment on April 5, 2000, and was
previously amended on May 2, 2003, December 22, 2004, March 20, 2007, December 22, 2008 and January
26, 2009.



I.




          Paragraph 3G of the Agreement is hereby amended to revise the last subparagraph thereof to
read as follows:




“PAROD shall receive a taxable car allowance of $2,000 per month, effective May 1,
2010.”



II.





Paragraph 4B of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:




“B. Without Cause. LINDSAY may terminate PAROD’s employment at any time
without Cause upon at least two (2) weeks advance written notice. If LINDSAY does
so, then LINDSAY shall pay PAROD, within ninety (90) days of such termination, an
amount equal to 3.2 times PAROD’s annual salary in effect on his termination date,
subject to PAROD’s execution of a general release (“Release”) in a form to be agreed
upon by LINDSAY and PAROD. Such payment shall be a complete and liquidated payment
for damages or claims, if any, which PAROD may have against LINDSAY due to LINDSAY’s
termination of his employment prior to the end of the Term of this Agreement. For
purposes of clarification relating to Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code,
PAROD shall not be entitled to receive any pro-rated bonus for the fiscal year of
termination of his employment and shall only be entitled to receive the payment
provided for in this Paragraph 4B.”



III.




        All other terms and conditions of the Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed. All
defined terms which are used herein shall have the same meaning as in the Agreement, except as
modified herein.



[Signatures on following page.]






-1-









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed the Restated Sixth Amendment to the Agreement to
be effective on the later date set forth below when the Agreement has been executed by both
parties.



	 	 	 

	RICHARD W. PAROD

	 	LINDSAY CORPORATION
	 
	 	 
	/s/ Richard W. Parod

	 	/s/ Michael N. Christodolou
	 

	 	 
	Richard W. Parod

	 	Michael N. Christodolou
	 

	 	Chairman of the Board
	Date: April 5, 2010

	 	Date: March 29, 2010







- 2 -
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

I, Joseph J. Raymond, Sr., Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer of Stratus Services Group, Inc., (the “Company”), do herebycertify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge the foregoing Quarterly Reportof the Company:

 
| (1)    |   | fully complies with the requirements of section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78m or  78o(d), and,                          |   |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                            |   |
| (2)    |   | the information contained  in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the  financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |   |

 

 
| Dated:  August 14, 2002 | By:    | /s/ Joseph J. Raymond |                                   |
|------------------------------|--------|-----------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                         |   |                  | Joseph J. Raymond                      |
|                         |   |                  | Chairman of the Board of  Directors,   |
|                         |   |                  | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

 

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6322
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GREGORY WHYTE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CR-91- 357-MJG) Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 20, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Whyte, Appellant Pro Se. Martin Joseph Clarke, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Gregory Whyte appeals the district court’s order denying his motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2000) for an adjustment of his criminal sentence imposed in 1992. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Whyte , No. CR-91-357-MJG (D. Md. Feb. 5, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
81,7('67$7(6&28572)$33($/6)259(7(5$16&/$,06

12 

52%(570 6(//(56 $33(//$17

9

52%(57/ :,/.,(

6(&5(7$5<2)9(7(5$16$))$,56 $33(//((

%HIRUH$//(1JudgeDQG'$9,6DQG6&+2(/(1 Senior Judges.

25'(5

$SSHOODQW 5REHUW 0 6HOOHUV DSSHDOHG DQ $SULO   %RDUG RI 9HWHUDQV
 $SSHDOV

GHFLVLRQ GHQ\LQJ DQ HIIHFWLYH GDWH HDUOLHU WKDQ 6HSWHPEHU   IRU KLV VHUYLFHFRQQHFWHG

PDMRUGHSUHVVLYHGLVRUGHU,QDQ$XJXVWSUHFHGHQWLDOGHFLVLRQWKH&RXUWVHWDVLGHWKH

%RDUGGHFLVLRQDQGUHPDQGHGWKHPDWWHU7KH&RXUWKHOGWKDWDJHQHUDOVWDWHPHQWRILQWHQWWRVHHN

EHQHILWVFRXSOHGZLWKDUHDVRQDEO\LGHQWLILDEOHLQVHUYLFHPHGLFDOGLDJQRVLVUHIOHFWHGLQVHUYLFH

WUHDWPHQWUHFRUGV9$SRVVHVVHGEHIRUHWKH52GHFLGHGWKHFODLPPD\EHVXIILFLHQWWRFRQVWLWXWH

DFODLPIRUEHQHILWV

,QD-XO\GHFLVLRQWKH86&RXUWRI$SSHDOVIRUWKH)HGHUDO&LUFXLW)HGHUDO&LUFXLW

UHYHUVHGWKLV&RXUW
VGHFLVLRQ

7KH)HGHUDO&LUFXLWKHOGWKDWWKLV&RXUWIRUPXODWHGDQLQFRUUHFW

OHJDOWHVWIRUGHWHUPLQLQJLI0U6HOOHUVLVHQWLWOHGWRDQHDUOLHUHIIHFWLYHGDWHDQGWKDW>X@QGHUWKH

FRUUHFWWHVWDYHWHUDQ
VIRUPDOFODLPLVUHTXLUHGWRLGHQWLI\WKHVLFNQHVVGLVHDVHRULQMXULHVIRU

ZKLFKFRPSHQVDWLRQLVVRXJKWDWOHDVWDWDKLJKOHYHORIJHQHUDOLW\

7KH)HGHUDO&LUFXLWKHOGWKDW

DSSHOODQWXQGLVSXWHGO\IDLOHGWKDWWHVWDQGWKXVZDVQRWHQWLWOHGWRDQHDUOLHUHIIHFWLYHGDWH

7KH

FRXUW UHYHUVHGWKLV&RXUW
VGHFLVLRQDQG UHPDQGHGWKHPDWWHU IRUWKHHQWU\RIMXGJPHQWDJDLQVW

DSSHOODQW

8SRQFRQVLGHUDWLRQRIWKHIRUHJRLQJLWLV





-XGJH'DYLVLVD6HQLRU-XGJHDFWLQJLQUHFDOOVWDWXVIn re Recall of Retired Judge 86 9(7 $33 0,6& 25'(5

-DQ

-XGJH 6FKRHOHQ LV D 6HQLRU -XGJH DFWLQJ LQ UHFDOO VWDWXVIn re Recall of Retired Judge 86 9(7 $33 0,6&

25'(5-DQ

 Sellers v. Wilkie9HW$SS

 Sellers v. Wilkie)G)HG&LU

 Id.DW

 Id.


25'(5('WKDWWKH$SULO%RDUGGHFLVLRQLV$)),50(',WLVIXUWKHU

 25'(5('WKDWWKLVRUGHULVWKHILQDOMXGJPHQWDQGPDQGDWHRIWKLV&RXUW

'$7('2FWREHU 3(5&85,$0
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 603 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 24, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To require the conveyance of certain public land within the 

boundaries of Camp Williams, Utah, to support the 

training and readiness of the Utah National Guard. 

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


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

HR 603 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Utah National Guard 

3 Readiness Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. LAND CONVEYANCE, CAMP WILLIAMS, UTAH. 

5 (a) CONVEYANCE REQUIRED.—Not later than 120 

6 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Sec7 retary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Land 

8 Management, shall convey, without consideration, to the 

9 State of Utah all right, title, and interest of the United 

10 States in and to certain lands comprising approximately 

11 431 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ‘‘Pro12 posed Camp Williams Land Transfer’’ and dated March 

13 7, 2008, which are located within the boundaries of the 

14 public lands currently withdrawn for military use by the 

15 Utah National Guard and known as Camp Williams, 

16 Utah, for the purpose of permitting the Utah National 

17 Guard to use the conveyed land as provided in subsection 

18 (c). 

19 (b) REVOCATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER.—Executive 

20 Order No. 1922 of April 24, 1914, as amended by section 

21 907 of the Camp W.G. Williams Land Exchange Act of 

22 1989 (title IX of Public Law 101–628; 104 Stat. 4501), 

23 shall be revoked, only insofar as it affects the lands identi24 fied for conveyance to the State of Utah under subsection 

25 (a). 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

HR 603 RFS

1 (c) REVERSIONARY INTEREST.—The lands conveyed 

2 to the State of Utah under subsection (a) shall revert to 

3 the United States if the Secretary of the Interior deter4 mines that the land, or any portion thereof, is sold or at5 tempted to be sold, or that the land, or any portion there6 of, is used for non-National Guard or non-national defense 

7 purposes. Any determination by the Secretary of the Inte8 rior under this subsection shall be made in consultation 

9 with the Secretary of Defense and the Governor of Utah 

10 and on the record after an opportunity for comment. 

11 (d) HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.—With respect to any 

12 portion of the land conveyed under subsection (a) that the 

13 Secretary of the Interior determines is subject to reversion 

14 under subsection (c), if the Secretary of the Interior also 

15 determines that the portion of the conveyed land contains 

16 hazardous materials, the State of Utah shall pay the 

17 United States an amount equal to the fair market value 

18 of that portion of the land, and the reversionary interest 

19 shall not apply to that portion of the land. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 23, 

2009. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
#### Paul E. Schweigert, Appellant, v Town of Newfane et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Town Law § 65 (3) provides in pertinent part that "no action shall be maintained against a town upon or arising out of a contract entered into by the town * * * unless a written verified claim shall have been filed with the town clerk within six months after the cause of action shall have accrued, but no such action shall be brought upon any such claim until forty days have elapsed after the filing of the claim in the office of the town clerk.”

Concededly, plaintiff did not serve a notice of claim, but did *996commence an action within six months. Plaintiff’s argument that service of a summons and complaint is the equivalent of a notice of claim is rejected. To allow the summons and complaint to substitute for the notice of claim would render meaningless that portion of the statute which requires a 40-day waiting period following the filing of the notice of claim before an action may be commenced *(cf., Frink v Town of Amenia,*91 Misc 2d 491).

On appeal, plaintiff asserts for the first time that his second cause of action for wrongful discharge is not a contract claim and, therefore, is not subject to the notice of claim provisions of Town Law § 65 (3). Plaintiff failed to raise this argument at Special Term and, therefore, it is not preserved for review. In any event, such a claim would be subject to a notice of claim requirement *(see,*Town Law § 67 [1]), which provides that notice of a tort claim against the town must be served in compliance with General Municipal Law § 50-e. Plaintiff’s belated argument on this issue is unavailing. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J. — dismiss complaint.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO                Exhibit 32.2
                         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 GAVELLA CORP. (the "Company") on Form
10KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harry J. Santoro,
Chief 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, 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/ Harry J. Santoro

Harry J. Santoro

Chief Financial Officer
March 30, 2004

These certifications are furnished with this report pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the
Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.