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 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ONEOK Partners, L.P. (the “Company”) for theperiod ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John W. Gibson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

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

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

/s/ John W. Gibson 

John W. Gibson 

Chief Executive Officer 

May 2, 2008 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to ONEOKPartners, L.P. and will be retained by ONEOK Partners, L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO



18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO



SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of St. John Knits, International, Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending October 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Roger G. Ruppert, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (3) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (4) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: January 26, 2005



/s/ Roger G. RuppertRoger G. Ruppert Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
133982 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133982 COA: 273827 Calhoun CC: 2003-001012-FC CURTIS RODERICK HOFFMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 3, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing ent itlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s0830 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 10, 2007

Clerk
# Official Journal L 254/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 254 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6416 July 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 254

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6416 July 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1158 of 22 June 2021 on design, construction and performance requirements and testing standards for marine equipment and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1170 (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1158 of 22 June 2021 on design, construction and performance requirements and testing standards for marine equipment and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1170 (
  1
  )

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
H. R. 1231

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,

the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

An Act

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain National Forest lands

to Elko County, Nevada, for continued use as a cemetery.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF NATIONAL FOREST LANDS TO ELKO

COUNTY, NEVADA, FOR USE AS CEMETERY.

(a) REQUIREMENT TO CONVEY.—The Secretary of Agriculture

shall convey, without consideration, to Elko County, Nevada, all

right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the real

property described in subsection (b).

(b) DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The property referred to in subsection (a)

consists of: (A) a parcel of National Forest lands (including

any improvements thereon) in Elko County, Nevada, known

as Jarbidge Cemetery, consisting of approximately 2 acres

within the following described lands: NE1⁄4 SW1⁄4 NW1⁄4, S.

9 T. 46 N, R. 58 E., MDB&M, which shall be used as a

cemetery; and (B) the existing bridge over the Jarbidge River

that provides access to that parcel, and the road from the

bridge to the parcel as depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Elko

County Road and Bridge Conveyance’’ dated July 27, 1999.

(2) SURVEY.—The exact acreage and legal description of

the property to be conveyed under subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary. As a condition

of any conveyance under this section, the Secretary shall

require that the cost of the survey shall be borne by the

County.

(c) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The Secretary may

require such additional terms and conditions with respect to the

conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United States, except that
H. R. 1231—2

the Secretary may not retain for the United States any reversionary

interest in property conveyed under this section.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
| Name                           |   | State of Incorporation |   | D/b/a Name                 |
|--------------------------------|--------|------------------------|--------|----------------------------|
|                           |   |                   |   |                       |
| Titan Energy Development, Inc. |   | Minnesota              |   | Stanza Technologies, Inc.  |
|                           |   |                   |   |                       |
| Stellar Energy Services, Inc.  |   | Minnesota              |   | Titan Energy Systems, Inc. |
|                           |   |                   |   |                       |
| Grove Power, Inc.              |   | Florida                |   | None                       |
|                           |   |                   |   |                       |
| Sustainable Solutions, Inc     |   | Minnesota              |   | None                       |
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10.11.4

October 15, 1998

Richard E. Ottalagana
965 Strong Rd.
Victor, NY 14564

Re:  Stock Rights Agreement
     ----------------------

Dear Dick:

The purpose of this letter is to formalize our understanding concerning certain
restrictions on your ownership and/or transfer of PaeTec Corp. stock pursuant to
your Stock Rights Agreement dated July 17, 1998.  In particular, this letter
confirms that those restrictions will be relaxed as described below, effective
upon the third anniversary of your employment with PaeTec Communications, Inc.

As we have previously discussed, your decision to join PaeTec was based, in
part, on a mutual understanding concerning the nature and length of your
employment. Specifically, it was understood that following your third full year
of employment with PaeTec you would be entitled to reduce your status at PaeTec
to part-time employment (i.e., no more than twenty hours per week) or to assist
PaeTec on a consulting basis for no more than twenty hours per week, without
adversely affecting any "vesting" rights in your PaeTec stock. This letter
formalizes our understanding that a reduction of your employment status in the
manner indicated above will not be deemed to be a voluntary separation from the
company pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Stock Rights Agreement and therefore
will not trigger the "Purchase Option" described in Section 3. Instead, your
Stock Rights Agreement will continue in full force and effect just as if you
were continuing on as a full-time employee, and the Purchase Option will not
take effect until such time as it is triggered by some other event described in
the Stock Rights Agreement. If no such triggering event occurs, the Purchase
Option will still fully expire, as indicated in the Agreement, on the fourth
anniversary of your employment with PaeTec Communications, Inc.

I trust that this letter accurately summarizes our understanding with regard to
your Stock Rights Agreement and our mutual expectations of your employment with
PaeTec.  If so, please indicate your agreement with the terms of this letter by
countersigning below and returning this letter to me at your earliest
convenience.

Very truly yours,

PaeTec Corp. and PaeTec Communications, Inc.

/s/ Arunas A. Chesonis
----------------------------
Arunas A. Chesonis
President


Agreed as of this 12th day of January, 1999

/s/ Richard E. Ottalagana
----------------------------
Richard E. Ottalagana
Joseph LEMOINE, petitioner, v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden.

No. 18-7780.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 10.3



AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO

STANCORP FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.

1999 OMNIBUS STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN



In accordance with Section 17 of the StanCorp Financial Group, Inc. 1999 Omnibus Stock
Incentive Plan as amended (the Plan), the Board of Directors of StanCorp Financial Group, Inc. (the Company) has approved and the Company hereby adopts the following amendment to the Plan:



Section 7.1.4.6 of the Plan is amended to provide in its entirety as follows:



| | 7.1.4.6 | Termination by Reason of Retirement.Unless otherwise determined by the Board of Directors and except as provided in Section 7.2.6, if an optionee terminates employment by or
service with the Company by reason of Retirement, such optionee may exercise his or her option(s) at any time prior to the expiration date of the option(s) or the expiration of 60 months after the date of termination, whichever is the
shorter period, provided that with respect to Incentive Stock Options, the period during which an option may be exercised after the date of retirement shall not exceed that permitted with respect to Incentive Stock Options under the Code.
| | ------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: February 11, 2002



STANCORP FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., An Oregon
corporationBy:

/s/ Ronald E. TimpeRonald E. Timpe Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Philip Andra GRIGSBY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9107.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Northern Border
Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership") for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), William R. Cordes, as Chief Executive Officer of the
Partnership, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

            (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or section 15(d), as applicable, 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 Partnership.

Dated: November 9, 2004                    /s/ William R. Cordes
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       William R. Cordes
                                       Chief Executive Officer

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and
not for any other purpose.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1318

To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade

relations treatment) to the products of Kyrgyzstan.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 25, 1999

Ms. DUNN (for herself, Mr. BERMAN, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment

(normal trade relations treatment) to the products of

Kyrgyzstan.

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 makes the following findings:

5 (1) Kyrgyzstan has been found to be in full

6 compliance with the freedom of emigration require7 ments under title IV of the Trade Act of 1974.

8 (2) Since its independence from the Soviet

9 Union in 1991, Kyrgyzstan has made great progress
2

•HR 1318 IH

1 towards democratic rule and towards creating a free2 market economy system.

3 (3) Kyrgyzstan concluded a bilateral investment

4 treaty with the United States in 1994.

5 (4) Kyrgyzstan has demonstrated a strong de6 sire to build a friendly and cooperative relationship

7 with the United States.

8 (5) The extension of unconditional normal trade

9 relations treatment to the products of Kyrgyzstan

10 will enable the United States to avail itself of all

11 rights under the World Trade Organization with re12 spect to Kyrgyzstan.

13 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF

14 THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 TO KYRGYZSTAN.

15 (a) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATIONS AND EXTEN16 SIONS OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT.—Notwith17 standing any provision of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974

18 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.), the President may—

19 (1) determine that such title should no longer

20 apply to Kyrgyzstan; and

21 (2) after making a determination under para22 graph (1) with respect to Kyrgyzstan, proclaim the

23 extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal

24 trade relations treatment) to the products of that

25 country.
3

•HR 1318 IH

1 (b) TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV.—

2 On or after the effective date of the extension under sub3 section (a)(2) of nondiscriminatory treatment to the prod4 ucts of Kyrgyzstan, title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 shall

5 cease to apply to that country.

Æ
Jennifer GALVAN, petitioner, v. Anthony STEWART, Warden.

No. 17-9299.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Miron Markovitz, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Lapis Technologies,
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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

         (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer is made
known to us by others, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;

         (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and presented in this report our 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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.

August 15, 2005

/s/ Miron Markovitz
-----------------------
Miron Markovitz
Chief Financial Officer
A00A0413.

#### STAMPS v. JOHNSON et al.

(535 SE2d 1)

Phipps, Judge.

Allen and Regina Stamps filed a legal malpractice action against Donald W. Johnson and The Johnson Law Firm (hereinafter “Johnson”). The trial court dismissed the Stampses’ complaint with preju*239dice because they did not file an expert affidavit as required by OCGA § 9-11-9.1. The Stampses appeal. We find the dismissal with prejudice was proper and affirm.

Decided May 10, 2000

Reconsideration denied May 30, 2000.

Allen Stamps, *pro se.*

Regina Stamps, *pro se.*

*Johnson Law Firm, Donald W. Johnson,*for appellees.

The Stampses previously brought a slip and fall action against Ingles Markets on behalf of their daughter. Johnson represented them. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Ingles because it determined that the complaint had been filed one week after a two-year statute of limitation had elapsed. Johnson apparently took the position that a longer statute of limitation applied.1

The Stampses later filed this malpractice action. They did not file an expert affidavit as required by OCGA § 9-11-9.1, however, and Johnson filed a motion to dismiss contemporaneously with his initial responsive pleading.2 The trial court granted the motion.

On appeal, the Stampses assert three bases for their contention that the trial court erred: first, the court denied them their right to a jury trial; second, the evidence clearly establishes legal malpractice by Johnson, creating questions of fact to be determined by a jury regarding the damages they suffered; and third, the triál judge abused his discretion because the failure to file the affidavit was a procedural defect which could have been cured.

Under *ABE Engineering v. Griffin, Cochran &*Marshall,3 the trial court was correct in dismissing the complaint with prejudice. In *ABE,*the plaintiff failed to file an expert affidavit as required by OCGA § 9-11-9.1, and this court held that dismissal of the complaint with prejudice was the appropriate consequence. In accord with *ABE,*we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Johnson, C. J, and McMurray, Senior Appellate Judge, concur.*

1

 The Stampses have attached to the brief correspondence wherein they urged Johnson to file the complaint before the two-year period elapsed.

2

 See OCGA § 9-11-9.1 (b).

3

212 Ga. App. 586 (443 SE2d 1) (1994).