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









Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002),
I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of ATC Technology Corporation (the
"Company"), hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.








Date:  February
26, 2009







/s/
      Todd R. PetersTodd
      R. Peters, Chief Executive
Officer






This
certification will not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the
Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that
section.  This certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except
to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by
reference.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: MARTIN T. DYKE, MARTIN T. DYKE, III, AND DYKE & CO. 

DOCKET NUMBER: 168 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA Docket No. 168 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture, charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Martin T. Dyke, 

Martin T. Dyke, III, 

and Dyke & Co. 

(New York, New York) 

The complaint charges that during the period August 15 through 28, 1969, the 

respondent partnership, while registered as a futures commission merchant under 

the Act, failed to meet minimum financial requirements prescribed for futures 

commission merchants. It also charges that the partnership was undersegregated 

on various dates during the period June 2 through August 19, 1969, in amounts 

ranging up to approximately $ 93,000. It further charges that segregation 

records were not properly prepared and maintained. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time, April 28, 1970, in New York, New York. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
* This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

** Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50343 Conference Calendar

JOSEPH WARREN POLK, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BILLY BURKE; CAROLYN HARRINGTON; DAN SMITH, Sheriff, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-97-CV-72

- - - - - - - - - - February 10, 1999 Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. * PER CURIAM: ** Joseph Warren Polk, Jr., Texas inmate #805394, appeals the district court’s summary judgment for the defendants. Polk has also moved for leave to supplement his reply brief and for the relief which he requested in his civil rights complaint. IT IS ORDERED that the motions are DENIED. Our independent review of the district court’s judgment isNo. 98-50343 -2- based on the appellate record and not upon consideration of any evidence which was not presented to the district court. See United States v. Flores , 887 F.2d 543, 546 (5th Cir. 1989). We have carefully reviewed the arguments and the appellate record. For essentially the same reasons as explained by the district court in its order granting summary judgment for the defendants, see Polk v. Burke , No. W-97-CA-072 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 18, 1998), we conclude that the district court did not err in its summary-judgment determination. See Little v. Liquid Air Corp. , 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc); Brewer v. Wilkinson , 3 F.3d 816, 825 (5th Cir. 1993). AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.
| **Shareholder Fees - TargetedInternationalFunds-RetailComboPRO**           | Dec. 30, 2023 USD ($) |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|
| TargetedInternationalFunds-RetailComboPRO | Fidelity Emerging Markets Fund |                  |
| **Shareholder Fees:**                                                      |                  |
| (fees paid directly from your investment)                                  | none                  |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Other Expenses
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher SEC -Name Form -Number N-1A -Chapter A -Section 3 -Subsection table -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph 10
+ Details**Name:**rr_ShareholderFeeOther**Namespace Prefix:**rr_**Data Type:**rr:NonNegativeMonetaryType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**rr_ShareholderFeesAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**rr_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**dei_DocumentInformationDocumentAxis=fmr_TargetedInternationalFunds-RetailComboPROMember**Namespace Prefix:****Data Type:**na**Balance Type:****Period Type:** |
| X                                                                                                                                |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**dei_LegalEntityAxis=fmr_S000007110Member**Namespace Prefix:****Data Type:**na**Balance Type:****Period Type:** |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6016
JAMES EDMOND WATTS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATRICIA E. CONNER, Correctional Officer, Augusta Correctional Center; L. SAUNDERS, Warden; JACK LEE; S. JAMES TAYLOR; MAJOR DAY; D. BOYERS, Captain; INVESTIGATOR REYNOLDS; LAWRENCE W. DURY, III; L. H. HUFFMAN; SERGEANT STARKEY, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge; Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-94-586-R) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 16, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.James Edmond Watts, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order denying Appellant's motions to compel discovery. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: MARVIN SPERLING 

DOCKET NUMBER: 177 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA Docket No. 177 

(Administrative Hearing Under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Marvin Sperling 

New York, New York 

The complaint charges that during December 1968 and January 1969, Marvin 

Sperling, a then employee of Jacobson Commodities, Inc., converted to his own 

use $ 1,200 which he had received from his employer's customers to margin their 

commodity futures accounts. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time on October 20, 1971, in New York, New York. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael A. Walsh, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of CyberSource Corporation;
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 30, 2010



By:

/s/ Michael A. WalshMichael A. Walsh President
and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32314]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14945]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Northwest Sacramento Province Advisory Committee (PAC); Notice of 
Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service.

ACTION:  Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Northwest Sacramento Province Advisory Committee will meet 
on June 14, 2001. The meeting starts at 9:30 a.m. in the BLM Conference 
Room, 355 Hemsted Drive, Redding, CA. The Advisory Committee was 
appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture to provide recommendations on 
implementation of the Northwest Plan Record of Decision (``President's 
Forest Plan'').
    Agenda items to be covered include: (1) FERC relicensing; (2) 
Survey and Manage Final SEIS; (3) Red Legged Frog Critical Habitat 
issue; (4) Update on proposed Resource Advisory Committees (RAC's); (5) 
Using Clear Creek full ecosystem landscape management demonstration 
project; (6) Open agenda time; (7) NPS presentation plan; (8) Fire/
Fuels Initiative update. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions regarding this 
meeting to Sharon Heywood, Designated Federal Official for Northwest 
Sacramento Province Advisory Committee, USDA Forest Service, 2400 
Washington Ave., Redding CA 96001 (503) 242-2200 or Duane Lyon, 
Coordinator, Northwest Sacramento Province Advisory Committee, USDA 
Forest Service, 2400 Washington, Ave., Redding, CA 96001 (530) 242-
2207.

    Dated: May 7, 2001.
J. Sharon Heywood,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 01-14945 Filed 6-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3401-FR-M
Exhibit 10.10.1

 

EXECUTION VERSION

 

AMENDMENT TO

AMENDED & RESTATED

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

THIS AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated as of May 12, 2016 (the “Amendment”), by and between Gypsum Management and Supply, Inc., a Georgia corporation (the “Company”) and G. Michael Callahan (the “Executive”) and, solely for purposes of Section 5 (and Exhibit A) of the Employment Agreement (as defined below), GMS Inc. (“Holdings”).

 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive previously entered into an employment agreement dated as of April 1, 2014, which was amended and restated effective as of May 1, 2015 (the “Employment Agreement”); and

 

WHEREAS, Holdings, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement as set forth in this Amendment.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other valid consideration, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

 

1.              Amendment of Section 5.  Effective upon an IPO (as defined in that certain Stockholders’ Agreement by and among Holdings, the AEA Investors, the Management Investors and Additional Investors (as defined therein) dated as of April 1, 2014, as amended from time to time (the “Stockholders’ Agreement”)), the terms set forth on Exhibit A to the Employment Agreement shall be null and void ab initio and of no further force and effect. For the sake of clarity, all other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement other than as modified herein shall remain in full force and effect.

 

Section 1.      This Amendment shall be deemed effective as of May 1, 2016.

 

[signature page follows]

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.

 

 

	
 
    	
GYPSUM MANAGEMENT AND   SUPPLY, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
/s/ Craig Apolinsky
    
	
 
    	
By: Craig Apolinsky 
    
	
 
    	
Title: General Counsel
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
GMS INC.,   solely for purposes of Section 5 and Exhibit A
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
/s/ J. Louis Sharpe 
    
	
 
    	
By: J. Louis Sharpe 
    
	
 
    	
Title: Vice President   and Assistant Secretary
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
EXECUTIVE
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
/s/ G. Michael Callahan
    
	
 
    	
G. Michael Callahan
#### Douglas G. SCHEITLIN, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-16347.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 10, 2012.

Donald R. Day, Anthony S. Vitagliano, Esquire, Manning & Marder, Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, LLP, Scottsdale, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Joseph T. Clees, Esquire, Senior, Leigh Eric Dowell, Esquire, Leah Shay Freed, Esquire, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: TROTT and BEA, Circuit Judges, and PALLMEYER, District Judge.**

*

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

**

 The Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois, sitting by designation.

*699MEMORANDUM ***

Douglas Scheitlin appeals the district court’s dismissal on summary judgment of his claim that he was terminated by Frees-cale Semiconductor, Inc. (“Freeseale”) in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). As the facts and procedural history are familiar to the parties, we do not recite them here except as necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. *Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575*F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm the decision of the district court.

Under the ADEA, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that “age was the ‘but-for’ cause of the challenged adverse employment action.” *Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557*U.S. 167, 129 S.Ct. 2343, 2352 (2009). The district court properly concluded that Scheitlin failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact in either his age discrimination or retaliation claim.

As the district court recognized, nothing in the record supports Scheitliris assertion that the employee selected to replace him was unqualified to assume his position. Scheitlin’s “subjective personal judgments of [his] competence alone do not raise a genuine issue of material fact.” *Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace & Co.,*104 F.3d 267, 270 (9th Cir.1996).

The comments made by Freescale’s Chief Executive Officer at a meeting eight months prior to Scheitliris termination were stray remarks unrelated to the challenged adverse actions and “are insufficient to establish discrimination.” *Merrick v. Farmers Ins. Group,*892 F.2d 1434, 1438 (9th Cir.1990). Nor does a manager’s truthful acknowledgment that Scheitliris replacement was younger and less experienced constitute evidence that age was the reason Scheitlin was chosen for redeployment.

None of the remaining evidence suffices to create a genuine dispute as to whether Freescale’s legitimate rationale for selecting Scheitlin for redeployment and then terminating him was “internally consistent or otherwise not believable.” *Noyes v. Kelly Servs.,*488 F.3d 1163, 1170 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Randy Antonio THOMAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6412.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Soriano Angel Dominguez, Appellant

No. 06-13-00164-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 7 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

F12-11228-Y). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice 

Morriss and Justice Carter participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the 

judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect 

appellant’s plea of “not true” to the enhancement allegations and to show the jury’s finding of 

“true” on the enhancement issue. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Soriano Angel Dominguez, has adequately indicated his 

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MAY 8, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<S>                            <C>
<ARTICLE>                      5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 1999 and the consolidated
statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 1999 of Northeast
Energy, LP and subsidiaries and is qualified in its entirety by reference
To such financial statements.

<CIK>                          0001059025
<NAME>                         Northeast Energy, LP
<MULTIPLIER>                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                     U.S. DOLLARS
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                1
<CASH>                             $33,085
<SECURITIES>                            $0
<RECEIVABLES>                      $32,332
<ALLOWANCES>                            $0
<INVENTORY>                        $14,338
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   $80,242
<PP&E>                            $513,658
<DEPRECIATION>                     $42,807
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  $1,345,858
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              $51,358
<BONDS>                           $638,880
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   $0
<PREFERRED>                             $0
<COMMON>                                $0
<OTHER-SE>                        $194,154
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    $1,345,858
<SALES>                           $336,299
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  $336,299
<CGS>                                   $0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     $217,016
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    $7,190
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        $0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 $78,790
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    $33,303
<INCOME-TAX>                            $0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                $33,303
<DISCONTINUED>                          $0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         $0
<CHANGES>                               $0
<NET-INCOME>                       $33,303
<EPS-BASIC>                           $0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           $0




</TABLE>