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

                   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Carol K. Nelson, Chief Executive Officer and President, and Lars H. Johnson,
Chief Financial Officer of Cascade Financial Corporation (the "Company"), each
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

1.  The Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30,
    2004 (the "Form 10-Q"), fully complies with 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

This certification is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906 and is
not being filed as part of this quarterly report.


Date: November 8, 2004


                                       /s/ Carol K. Nelson
                                       ----------------------------------
                                       Carol K. Nelson, President and CEO


                                       /s/ Lars H. Johnson
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Lars H. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the use of our report in the Form 10-K of Ascent Pediatrics, Inc.

Our report dated February 21, 1997 contains an explanatory paragraph that
states that the financial statements were prepared to present the assets
related to the product line to be sold by Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. and
the net sales and the identified costs and expenses and that they are not
intended to be a complete presentation of the product line's financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.


                                        /s/ KPMG LLP
                                        ------------
                                        KPMG LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 29, 2000
SMITH v. STIDHAM.

No. COA05-29I.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed June 6, 2006

Certification Date June 26, 2006

Appeal from Guilford (03CVS7160)

Case without published opinion. Reversed.
IN RE R.B.

COA06-449.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 7, 2006.

Certification Date November 27, 2006.

Appeal from the Chatham (01J124).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
#### Izabella Klevanskaya, Respondent, v Bourkho Khanimova, Doing Business as Berta Nail Salon, Appellant.

[798 NYS2d 912]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated July 1, 2004, which granted the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, there is no evidence in the record that this case was dismissed due to the plaintiffs failure to appear at a compliance conference *(see*22 NYCRR 202.27). Furthermore, CFLR 3404 does not apply to this prenote of issue action *(see Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv.,*282 AD2d 190 [2001]), and there was no 90-day notice pursuant to CFLR 3216. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion to restore this action to the calendar after it had been marked inactive *(see Burdick v Marcus,*17 AD3d 388 [2005]; *Bar-El v Key Food Stores Co., Inc.,*11 AD3d 420 [2004]; *Auguste v Linden Gardens Condominium,*8 AD3d 414 [2004]; *123X Corp. v McKenzie,*7 AD3d 769 [2004]). H. Miller, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8Nos. 333-13917, 333-14509, 333-18851, 333-51291, 333-40932,333-48114, 333-86376, 333-102738, 333-107638, 333-126956,and 333-124477) pertaining to Sabre Holdings Corporation Amended andRestated Long-Term Incentive Plan; The Sabre Group Holdings, Inc. 1996Amended and Restated Long-Term Incentive Plan, 1996 Directors Stock IncentivePlan, Employee Stock Purchase Plan and Deferred Compensation Plan; SabreHoldings Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan, Sabre Holdings Corporation2000 Stock Option Plan; GetThere.com, Inc. 1996 Stock Incentive Plan and1999 Stock Incentive Plan; Travelocity.com LP Second Amended 1999 Long-TermIncentive Plan, Travelocity Holdings, Inc. Amended 1999 Long-TermIncentive Plan, Travelocity.com LP Employee Stock Purchase Plan and TravelocityHoldings, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan; Sabre Holdings Corporation2003 Directors Deferred Compensation and Deferred Stock Unit Plan; SabreHoldings Corporation Amended and Restated 1996 Long-Term Incentive Plan;Restricted Stock Unit Replacement Awards; and Employee Stock Purchase Plan, asAmended and Restated, respectively; and the Registration Statement on Form S-3(No 333-99209) of our reports dated February 19, 2007 with respectto the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule ofSabre Holdings Corporation, Sabre Holdings Corporation management’s assessmentof the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Sabre HoldingsCorporation, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the yearended December 31, 2006.
|                        | /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP |   |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
| Ft. Worth, TX          |
| February 19, 2007 |

 

----
FORBIS, et al. v. NEAL.

No. 79PA06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 14, 2006.

Eugene C. Hicks, III, Charlotte, for Forbis.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th day of June 2006 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Beverly Neal) shall have up to and including the 7th day of August 2006 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 14th day of June 2006."
64 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by Territory, FY 2022

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions) 

Northrop Grumman $352.3 M

BAE Systems $229.9 M

Cummins $92.2 M

TT Electronics, PLC $66.0 M

Raytheon Technologies $45.7 M

UnitedHealth Group $44.4 M

Polaris Industries $30.4 M

3M $21.9 M

Kinetic Protection, LLC $18.7 M

General Dynamics $17.9 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

MINNESOTA

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$658.9 MILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

20,499

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Hennepin 274 664 1,947 3,415 6,300

Ramsey 24 920 1,751 789 3,484

Morrison ND 423 1,566 0 ND

St. Louis 18 279 1,404 78 1,779

Dakota 16 62 694 0 772

Washington ND 12 666 0 ND

Stearns 12 97 418 103 630

Blue Earth 16 13 218 119 366

Crow Wing ND 21 187 66 ND

Isanti ND ND 237 24 ND

Construction: 2%

Research and

Development: 7%

Service: 12%

Active Duty: 2%

Civilian: 13%

National Guard: 61%

Reserve: 24%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

44%

29%

8%

18%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

72%

5%

21%

1%

$2.7

$3.7 $3.7

$2.2

$1.5 $1.3 $1.2 $1.2

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22

#38 #50 0.4% $345 #39 #22 #34 #40

$2.0 B SPENT 

IN STATE

0.4% OF 

STATE GDP

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER 

RESIDENT

$1.2 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

20,499 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$0.7 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

$127.4 M GRANT 

SPENDING

Supplies and Equipment: 79%
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2022 65

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS

St. Louis

Wilkin

MINNESOTA FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions) (M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2022

Hennepin

Anoka

Dakota

Ramsey

Washington

St. Louis

Sherburne

Olmsted

Morrison

Wilkin

(M = millions)

$650.0 M

$354.7 M

$65.3 M

$33.8 M

$21.2 M

$17.7 M

$13.2 M

$7.2 M

$4.5 M

$2.9 M

Hennepin

Ramsey

St. Louis

Morrison

Dakota

Stearns

Washington

Crow Wing

Blue Earth

Isanti

$243.9 M

$131.9 M

$69.2 M

$53.9 M

$22.7 M

$20.2 M

$13.2 M

$8.0 M

$7.6 M

$5.9 M

Morrison

Sherburne

Anoka

Washington

Ramsey

Hennepin

Dakota

Olmsted

St. Louis

Morrison

Crow Wing

Isanti

Stearns

Hennepin Washington

Ramsey

Dakota

Blue Earth
# Commission Implementing Decision of 18 February 2013 on the supervision, plant health checks and measures to be taken on wood            packaging material actually in use in the transport of specified commodities originating in China (notified under document            C(2013) 789) (2013/92/EU) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Decision

# of 18 February 2013

# on the supervision, plant health checks and measures to be taken on wood packaging material actually in use in the transport                        of specified commodities originating in China                     

# (notified under document C(2013) 789)

# (2013/92/EU) (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1137 of 10 August 2018 on the supervision, plant health checks and measures to                                 be taken on wood packaging material for the transport of commodities originating in certain third countries (notified under                                 document C(2018) 5245).
STATE of North Carolina v. Karen Elaine EVERETT.

No. 350A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2006.

Thomas G. Meacham, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

Amos Granger Tyndall, Chapel Hill, for Everett.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Attorney General on the 7th day of July 2006 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th day of August 2006."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1058/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1058/2013 of 29 October 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1058/2013                     

# of 29 October 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 October 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
STATE v. YOUNG.

No. COA05-1265.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 5, 2006.

Certification Date July 25, 2006.

Appeal from Forsyth (04CRS11386, 04CRS54540, 04CRS54541).

Case without published opinion. No error.
Exhibit 10.1 Notice of Grant of Stock Options


    
      

    


    
      	
              Notice
                of Grant of Stock Options

              and
                Option Agreement

            	
              AVX
                Corporation

              ID:
                33-0379007

              801
                17th Avenue South

              Myrtle
                Beach, SC 29577

            


    

     

    
      

    


    
      	
              [Optionee]

            	
              Option
                Number:

            
	
              [Mailing
                Address]

            	
              Plan:

            
	 	
              ID:

            


    

     

    
      
        

      

    


    Effective
      [    ], you have been granted a(n) [Incentive]
      Stock Option
      to buy [    ] shares of AVX Corporation (the Company)
      stock
      at $[    ] per share.

    


    


    The
      total
      option price of the shares granted is $[    ].

    


    


    Shares
      in
      each period will become fully vested on the date shown.

     

    

      
        	
                Shares

              	 	
                Vest
                  Type

              	 	
                Full
                  Vest

              	 	
                Expiration

              
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 


      

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

      
        
          

        

      

    

    


    By
      your
      signature and the Company's signature below, you and the Company agree that
      these options are granted under and governed by the terms and conditions of
      the
      Company's stock option plan referred to above, which is attached and made a
      part
      of this document.

     

    
      
        

      

    


    
      	 	 	 
	
              AVX
                Corporation  

            	 	
              Date

            


    

     

    

      
        	 	 	 
	
                Employee

              	 	
                Date
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                                             578
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,050
<ALLOWANCES>                                       215
<INVENTORY>                                      5,678
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,473
<PP&E>                                           3,484
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,394
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,906
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,842
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           125
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,186
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,906
<SALES>                                         18,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,000
<CGS>                                           11,999
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,999
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,231
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,890)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,890)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (3,735)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,625)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.47)
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. Dane LOCKLEAR, Jr.

No. 578A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 27, 2006.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, L. Johnson Britt, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th day of July 2006 by Defendant to Extend Time to Investigate and Prepare Transcript:

"Motion Allowed. Court reporter shall have up to and including the 7th day of September 2006 to investigate and prepare transcript. By order of the Court in conference this the 27th day of July 2006."
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5653 

To reduce temporarily the duty on certain isotopic separation machinery 

and apparatus, and parts thereof, for use in the construction of an 

isotopic separation facility in southern New Mexico. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2008 

Mr. PEARCE (for himself, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, and Mrs. WILSON of 

New Mexico) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on certain isotopic separation 

machinery and apparatus, and parts thereof, for use 

in the construction of an isotopic separation facility in 

southern New Mexico. 

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


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5653 IH

1 SECTION 1. CERTAIN ISOTOPIC MACHINERY AND APPA2 RATUS, AND PARTS THEREOF, FOR USE IN 

3 THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ISOTROPIC SEPA4 RATION FACILITY IN SOUTHERN NEW MEX5 ICO. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.84.05 Isotopic separation machinery 

and apparatus, and parts 

thereof, for use in the construction of an isotopic separation facility located in 

southern New Mexico known 

as the ‘‘National Enrichment 

Facility’’ (provided for in 

subheading 8401.20.00) ........ 2.2% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

11 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

12 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

13 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 11, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

130460 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly RICHARD JAMES, Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff, Stephen J. Markman, and Justices
SAFECO INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 130460 COA: 262805 St. Clair CC: 03-002466-NZ STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY CO.,Defendant/Cross-DefendantAppellant, and

DAVID GASOWSKI,Defendant/Cross-PlaintiffAppellee, and

MARIO SYLVESTRI and AUTO CLUB GROUP INSURANCE CO., Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On December 5, 2007, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the November 8, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the application is ag ain considered. MCR 7.302(G)(1). In lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the ju dgment of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the St. Clair Circuit Court gran ting defendant-appellee Gaso wski and plai ntiff-appellee Safeco Insurance Company summ ary disposition, and we RE MAND this case to the St. Clair Circuit Court for further pr oceedings not inconsistent with this order. The “Release and Settlement Agreement” resol ving the underlying action specifically contemplated litigating the identity of the driver of the jet-ski in this cas e. Therefore, the circuit court erred in granting summary disposition to Ga sowski and Safeco against defendant

appellant State Farm Fire & Casualty Co mpany on collateral estoppel grounds.

s0108 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.

January 11, 2008

Clerk
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7539** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. LUIS FELIPE MANGUAL, JR., a/k/a Darin Harris , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. ( 8:04

- cr - 00235

- RWT

- 2; 8:14

- cv - 02119

- RWT )

Submitted : January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Luis Felipe Mangual, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Adam Kenneth Ake, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Mara Zusman Greenberg, Deborah A. Johnston, As sistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Luis Felipe Mangual, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitut ional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural rulin g is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mangual has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we den y a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not ai d the decisional process.

DISMISSED