alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Theundersigned, Jeffrey I. Friedman, Chairman of the Board and Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Lou Fatica, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofAssociated Estates Realty Corporation (the "Company"), certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for theperiod ended September 30, 2010, which this certification accompanies, fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13a-14 and 15d-14 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2.         The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
|                                                                                                                                                         |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Jeffrey I. Friedman                                                                                                                                      |
| Jeffrey I. Friedman                                                                                                                                          |
|                                                               |
|                                                               |
| /s/ Lou Fatica                                                                                                                                               |
| Lou Fatica                                                                                                                                                   |
|                            |
|                                                                                                                                                         |
| November 2, 2010                                                                                                                                             |
| Date                                                                                                                                                         |

A signed original of this written statement has been provided toAssociated Estates Realty Corporation and will be retained by AssociatedEstates Realty Corporation and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Aloysius P. FRANKLIN, petitioner, v. E. VALENZUELA, Warden.

No. 17-8918.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 11/26/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      413,869
COMMITMENTS
 112,030  172,054  112,135  166,304  104,910  390,469  389,099   23,400   24,770

CHANGES FROM 11/19/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -25,772)
 -11,381   -6,212    9,374  -23,964  -26,303  -25,971  -23,141      199   -2,631

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    27.1     41.6     27.1     40.2     25.3     94.3     94.0      5.7      6.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      186)
      49       75       74       38       39      135      156
```

----

Updated December 2, 2013
William Lem POSEY, II, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5504.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

*789Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-01-00418-CR

Blane Taylor Allen, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR-01-122, HONORABLE CHARLES R. RAMSAY, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

Appellant Blane Taylor Allen pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation and

unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §§ 30.02 (West Supp. 2001), 31.07

(West 1994). As called for in a plea bargain agreement, the district court assessed ten- and two-year

terms of imprisonment and fines of $1500, but suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant

on community supervision. Appellant filed a general notice of appeal.

When a defendant pleads guilty to a felony and the punishment assessed does not

exceed that recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant, the notice of appeal

must state that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect, or that the substance of the appeal was raised

by written motion and ruled on before trial, or that the trial court granted permission to appeal. Tex.

R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). Appellant’s notice of appeal does not comply with this rule and fails to confer
2

jurisdiction on this Court. Whitt v. State, 45 S.W.3d 274, 275 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, no pet.);

see also Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 80-81 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Before Justices Kidd, Yeakel and Patterson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: November 1, 2001

Do Not Publish
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Don Martin O'Neal, Appellant

No. 06-12-00120-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 8th District Court of 

Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

1021873). Opinion delivered by Justice 

Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Carter participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant, Don Martin O'Neal, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED MARCH 15, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
AO 120 (Rev. 08/10) 

TO: Mail Stop 8

Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

REPORT ON THE

FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN

ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR

TRADEMARK

In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been

filed in the U.S. District Court on the following

G Trademarks or G Patents. ( G the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):

DOCKET NO. DATE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT 

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:

DATE INCLUDED INCLUDED BY

G Amendment G Answer G Cross Bill G Other Pleading

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT 

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:

DECISION/JUDGEMENT

CLERK (BY) DEPUTY CLERK DATE

Copy 1—Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director

Copy 2—Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Case file copy

Case 2:23-cv-00488-JRG-RSP Document 2 Filed 10/19/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 53
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2201 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2201

To amend the independent counsel provisions of title 28, United States 
 Code, to authorize the appointment of an independent counsel when the 
 Attorney General determines that Department of Justice employees have 
                      engaged in certain conduct.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 1999

Mr. Traficant introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the independent counsel provisions of title 28, United States 
 Code, to authorize the appointment of an independent counsel when the 
 Attorney General determines that Department of Justice employees have 
                      engaged in certain conduct.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY FOR APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL.

    Section 592(c) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A), by striking the period 
at the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting ``; or'', and by adding 
after subparagraph (B) the following:
            ``(C) the Attorney General, upon completion of a 
        preliminary examination under this chapter, determines that 
        there are reasonable grounds to believe that--
                    ``(i) employees of the Department of Justice have 
                engaged in misconduct, criminal activity, corruption, 
                or fraud, and
                    ``(ii) further investigation is warranted.''.
                                 <all>
```
KALU Exhibit 10.6 - 3.31.2012 - 10-Q






Exhibit 10.6
Description of 2012 Short-Term Incentive Umbrella Plan 
Under the Amended and Restated 2006 Equity and Performance Incentive Plan
2012 Performance Goal and Bonus Pool            
The performance goal for the Company's 2012 fiscal year (the "STI Performance Period") shall be $5.0 million in Net cash provided by operating activities, as reported in the Company's Statements of Consolidated Cash Flows (“Cash Flow”).  The bonus pool, representing the amount available for payment of bonuses, shall equal 15% of Cash Flow.    
The purpose of establishing the maximum pool under the Company's 2012 Short-Term Incentive Umbrella Plan (the "2012 STI Umbrella Plan") is to improve tax efficiency with respect to the Company's incentive programs and achieve an Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) "performance based" exemption for annual bonus amounts earned by the designated participants identified below, during the STI Performance Period. The 2012 STI Umbrella Plan is authorized by and subject to the terms of the Kaiser Aluminum Corporation Amended and Restated 2006 Equity and Performance Incentive Plan.  
The specified maximum pool allocations, as established and defined below are subject to the Company's Compensation Committee's authority to reduce, but not increase, the amount of the actual bonus earned and payable to each designated participant under the 2012 STI Umbrella Plan.  It is anticipated that the payouts to the covered employees under the 2012 STI Umbrella Plan will be reduced by the Company's Compensation Committee through the exercise of negative discretion, which is permitted under Section 162(m). The Company's Compensation Committee's exercise of negative discretion with respect to one participant's award under the bonus pool shall not result in an increase in the amount payable to another participant under the bonus pool.    
Allocation of Bonus Pool to Designated Participants
	
			
	Executive Name
	Executive Title
	Percent of Pool Allocated 
to Executive1

	Jack A. Hockema
	Chief Executive Officer
	39.000%

	John Barneson
	SVP, Corporate Development
	10.280%

	John M. Donnan
	SVP, General Counsel and Secretary
	17.135%

	[Other Designated Participant]
	[Designated Participant Title]
	[Percentage]

	[Other Designated Participant]
	[Designated Participant Title]
	[Percentage]






Administrative Provisions


The 2012 STI Umbrella Plan only applies to the calculation and award of incentive awards, if any.  There will be no duplication of benefits created by the 2012 STI Umbrella Plan. 


The 2012 STI Umbrella Plan will not increase any benefits that may be payable under any severance and/or change in control agreements.
Exhibit 4.26

 

Summary of the Put Option agreed between Parati S.A and Fundação de Seguridade Social Braslight

 

On July 15, 2011, Parati S.A. — Participações em Ativos de Energia Elétrica (“Parati”), an affiliated company of Cemig, through Luce LLC (“Luce”), was notified by Fundação de Seguridade Social Braslight (“Braslight”), owner of 25% of the units of the investment fund Luce Brasil Fundo de Investimento em Participações (“FIP Luce”), which in turn is indirect holder, through Luce Empreendimentos e Participações S.A., of 26,576,149 common shares issued by Light S.A. (“Light”), representing, approximately, 13.03% of Light’s total and voting capital, that Braslight would exercise the Option to Sell its holding in FIP Luce (the “Put Option”), as provided for in the Unit Holders’ Agreement of FIP Luce.

 

A Share Purchase Agreement was therefore entered into for acquisition of 25% of the holding in FIP Luce, held by Braslight.

 

The acquisition price was R$ 171.98 million, paid to Braslight.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

I, BachThuy T. Vo,certify that:

1. I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Micro Component Technology, Inc.:

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

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

4. The registrant’sother certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation.

c) disclosed in thisreport any changes in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’sother certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

a) all significantdeficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b) any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.
| Dated: | May 11, 2007 |                                            | By: | /s/ BachThuy T. Vo |
|--------|--------------|-------------------------------------------------|-----|--------------------|
|   |         | BachThuy T. Vo  Interim Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-20849

Summary Calendar

__________________

ROBERT RASBERRY, JR.,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAMES A. COLLINS, ET AL.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-93-1131

- - - - - - - - - -

May 27, 1996

Before KING, DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Rasberry, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the

district court dismissing his civil rights action in part for

failure to state a claim and in part as frivolous. Rasberry

argues that the district court abused its discretion in

dismissing his Eighth Amendment claim as frivolous. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's order of dismissal

and find no reversible error. Rasberry v. Collins, No. CA-H-93-
No. 95-20849

-2-

1131 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 11, 1995). Rasberry does not adequately

argue his remaining claims in the body of his brief, and they are

deemed abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25

(5th Cir. 1993).

 The appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because

the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We

caution Rasberry that any additional frivolous appeals filed by

him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions,

Rasberry is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to

ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous

because they have been previously decided by this court.

 APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Ali DARWICH, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7033

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
AND IS QUAILIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          12,679
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,593
<ALLOWANCES>                                       749
<INVENTORY>                                      7,761
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,046
<PP&E>                                           4,143
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,523
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  54,050
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,764
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,319
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    54,050
<SALES>                                         95,913
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                95,913
<CGS>                                           71,392
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   71,392
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,165
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   240
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  53
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,753
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,755
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,998
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,998
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.97<F1>
<FN>
<F1>THE COMPANY PRESENTS PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE (EPS) ON THE FACE OF ITS
INCOME STATMENT.  FULLY DILUTED EPS IS WITHIN 97% OF PRIMARY EPS. THE FIGURES
PRESENTED ABOVE ARE PRIMARY EPS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```
  
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 10/23/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       43,109
COMMITMENTS
   9,023    1,798    1,779   20,306   29,025   31,108   32,602   12,001   10,507

CHANGES FROM 10/16/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -1,483)
      61      -92      219   -2,594   -1,984   -2,314   -1,858      831      375

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    20.9      4.2      4.1     47.1     67.3     72.2     75.6     27.8     24.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       52)
      15        5        8       25       21       44       31
```

----

Updated October 26, 2012
EXHIBIT 32





The undersigned, Jeffrey I. Friedman, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
and Lou Fatica, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Associated Estates Realty
Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

1.	The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March
31, 2007, which this certification accompanies, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13a-14 and 15d-14 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/ Jeffrey I. Friedman

Jeffrey I. Friedman



/s/Lou Fatica

Lou Fatica





May 1, 2007

Date

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to Associated Estates
Realty Corporation and will be retained by Associated Estates Realty Corporation and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.