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**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Aspen Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify, to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, 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 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.              The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:   February 8, 2011 | **/s/ MARK E. FUSCO**                 |
|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                          | Mark E. Fusco                         |
|                          | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 
| Date:   February 8, 2011 | **/s/ MARK P. SULLIVAN**                               |
|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                          | Mark P. Sullivan                                       |
|                          | Executive Vice President and Chief   Financial Officer |

 

1

----
STATE v. OWENS

No. COA06-711

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed April 17, 2007

Certification Date May 7, 2007

Appeal from Rutherford (05CRS55044).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

         The following is a list of Solutia's subsidiaries as of December 31,
2006, except for unnamed subsidiaries that, considered in the aggregate as a
single subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary.

                                                                  Percentage of
                                                                  Voting Power
                                                                  Owned by
                                                                  Solutia

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

CPFilms Inc............................................................100%

Monchem, Inc...........................................................100%

Monchem International, Inc. ...........................................100%

Solchem Netherlands C.V................................................100%

Solutia Brasil Ltda....................................................100%

Solutia Canada Inc.....................................................100%

Solutia Europe S.A./N.V................................................100%

Solutia Greater China, Inc.............................................100%

Solutia Netherlands Holdings B.V.......................................100%

Solutia Services International SCA/Comm, VA............................100%

Solutia Systems, Inc...................................................100%

Solutia Therminol Co., Ltd............................................. 60%

Solutia U.K. Holdings Limited..........................................100%

Solutia U.K. Investments Limited.......................................100%

Solutia U.K. Limited...................................................100%
LAVENDER v. DUKE POWER CO., LLC.

No. COA06-1717.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 2, 2007.

Certification Date October 22, 2007.

Appeal from Gaston (06CVS3145).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
10.3


Exhibit 10.3




Service Agreement




Client: Jueng Xiu

Project: Coding

Date: 6/9/16

Deadline: 6/23/16

Developer: Bylog Group Corp.




This agreement (the “Agreement”) is made on June 9, 2016 by and between Jueng Xiu (“Client”) and Bylog Group Corp. (“Developer”) in consideration of the mutual agreement made herein, both parties agree as follows:




Work: The Developer agrees to develop Java programming codes (the “Work”) for the client’s landing page page at the request of the client for fees agrees upon in advance and delivery of the Work by an agreed-upon deadline. Developer agrees that it will be the sole author of the Work, which will be original work and free of plagiarism. Developer will cooperate with Client in editing and otherwise reviewing the Work prior to completion and launch.




Confidentiality: Developer acknowledges that he may receive or have access to information which relates to the Client’s past, present, or future products, vendor lists, creative works, marketing strategies, pending projects/proposals, and other proprietary information. Developer agrees to protect the confidentiality of the Client’s proprietary information and all physical forms thereof, whether disclosed to Developer before this Agreement is signed or afterward. 




Compensation: In consideration of the Work to be performed by Developer, Client shall prepay to Developer 100% of the contract price ($2,000) not later then June 10, 2016. The Project pricing includes Developer’s fee only. Any and all outside costs will be billed to Client. Every additional work shall be paid on an hourly basis - $20 for an hour.




Client Approval: Upon acceptance of the Work, Client accepts responsibility for any further processes in which this work is used. Developer is not responsible for errors occurring in this work or projects related to this work after acceptance of the Work by the Client.




Cancellation: Both parties understand that Client or Developer may terminate the service at any time if, for any reason, the relationship is deemed unsatisfactory by either party. Upon written or verbal cancellation, Client is responsible for payment for all expenses incurred and any work done towards the completion of the project based on the percentage of the project completed that is determined by Developer. Should Client cancel the project following its completion, Client is responsible for full payment as per the agreed upon estimate plus all expenses incurred. In the event of cancellation, Developer retains ownership of all copyrights and original work created.




Acceptance of Terms: Client promises to pay for the services rendered by Developer for the Work as agreed upon. By signing below, Client agrees they have read, understood, and are considered legally bonded to these terms.




Client signature & date:




Client: 

/s/ Jueng Xiu

June 9, 2016




Developer: 

/s/Dmitrii Iaroshenko, President 

June 9, 2016
Christian Emerson DYSART and Mildred Maxwell Dysart v. William Kent CUMMINGS and Kimberly N. Cummings.

No. 132A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 12, 2007.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C.App. ___, 640 S.E.2d 832 (2007), affirming entry of summary judgment for plaintiffs on 1 March 2006 by Judge Kenneth C. Titus in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Supreme Court 12 September 2007.

Boyce & Isley, PLLC, by Philip R. Isley, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellees.

John Walter Bryant, Raleigh, for defendant-appellants.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

Justice BRADY did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
ALL STATE RESTAURANT EQUIPMENT CO., INC. v. SYMPOSIUM WESTSIDE, LLC.

No. COA06-1119.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 4, 2007.

Certification Date September 24, 2007.

Appeal from Guilford (05CVS12291).

Case reported without published opinion Affirmed.
FILED

October 27, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE 

ANTHONY KEITH ELDRIDGE, ) C/A NO. 03A01-9904-CH-00146

)

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) SULLIVAN COUNTY

)

vs. )

)

JULIA EDITH ELDRIDGE, )

)

Defendant-Appellee. )

D I S S E N T I N G O P I N I O N

The majority’s Judgment is wrong, because the Trial Judge is vested with wide

or broad discretion in matters of child custody and parental visitation. See, e.g., Harwell v.

Harwell, 612 S.W.2d 182 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

The majority’s judgment is wrong because the credibility of the witnesses is

within the province of the trier of fact. See Bingham v. Dyersburg Fabrics Co., Inc., 567

S.W.2d 169 (Tenn. 1978); Harwell & Rogers v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Ins. Co., 612

S.W.2d 178 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980)

The majority’s judgment is wrong because the Trial Court’s findings are

entitled to a presumption of correctness unless the preponderance of the evidence is

otherwise. T.R.A.P. Rule 13(d).

Apparently due to the acrimonious relationship of the parties, the Trial Judge

Page 1
appointed a PhD licensed in psychology as a special master. The findings of the special

master are insightful. In commenting on the child’s best interest, the master observed:

Generally, it is in the best of children to have happy, communicative

relationships with both parents, without interference. Denial of one’s parent,

means denial of part of oneself, emotionally, in terms of ego, and genetically,

and is not in a child’s own best interest. For one parent to deny the worth of

the other parent causes difficulty for the child, and is not in her best interest.

And in a subsequent finding in the continuing dispute between the parents, the master

observed:

Because of Taylor’s knowledge of and response to the family opinion, it is

important that Taylor continue overnight visits, to continue in her

understanding that her mother is her mother, and not just a stereotype. I

believe her mother Julia’s assertion that her daughter will see nothing

inappropriate. Taylor just wants to be able to love who she loves.

In situations such as this, we are admonished to be careful to avoid the

appearance of punishing one or the other parent, since awards of custody are not to punish a

parent. See Sutherland v. Sutherland, 831 S.W.2d 283 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). The

evidence preponderates that the child has not been adversely impacted by her visitation with

her mother. See Musselman v. Acuff, 826 S.W.2d 920 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). The burden

was on the father to show that the visitation adversely affected the child. Essentially, his

evidence was couched in homophobic opinions which lack probative value.

A review of the evidence in this record in accordance with the foregoing

principles, demonstrates, in my view, that the majority has substituted its judgment for the

Trial Court’s judgment, which renders it wrong on the facts and on the law.

I dissent, and would affirm the Trial Court’s judgment in this case.

__________________________

Herschel P. Franks, J.

Page 2
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE 

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING 

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. 

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

Ronald Grubb, as PR of the Estate of Joyce Grubb, 

Appellant, 

v. 

Clarendon Memorial Hospital, Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2011-201946 

Appeal from Clarendon County 

The Honorable George C. James, Jr., Circuit Court Judge 

Memorandum Opinion No. 2013-MO-034 

Heard December 4, 2013 – Filed December 18, 2013 

AFFIRMED 

John W. Carrigg, Jr., of Carrigg Law Firm, of Lexington, 

for Appellant. 

Hugh W. Buyck, of Buyck, Sanders & Simmons, LLC, 

of Mt. Pleasant, and Deborah H. Sheffield, of Columbia, 

for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM: This is a direct appeal from a grant of summary judgment in 

favor of Respondent. Appellant claims that the trial court erred when it granted 
summary judgment based on its finding that Appellant's claims were time barred. 

Even assuming section 15-79-125 of the South Carolina Code applies, as Appellant 

claims, we find Appellant's claims are nonetheless barred by the statute of 

limitations. Thus, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the 

following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-110 (2005) (providing for a twoyear statute of limitations for claims brought under the TCA); id. § 15-79-125(C) 

(Supp. 2012) (requiring that the parties in a medical malpractice action participate 

in a pre-suit mediation conference); id. § 15-79-125(E) (Supp. 2012) (allowing 

parties to initiate a civil action only after participating in the pre-suit mediation 

conference). 

AFFIRMED. 

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., 

concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                        8,121
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 86,876
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (8,000)
<INVENTORY>                                   209,531
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              300,559
<PP&E>                                        552,055
<DEPRECIATION>                                (369,708)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                493,142
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         4,409,746
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      5,999
<OTHER-SE>                                    (3,922,603)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  493,142
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              580,480
<CGS>                                         585,658
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 571,386
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            436,392
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1,012,956)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (1,012,956)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (1,012,956)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.19)



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          29,549
<SECURITIES>                                    16,731
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,136
<ALLOWANCES>                                       938
<INVENTORY>                                        138
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,608
<PP&E>                                           9,249
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,916
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,570
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,744
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,079
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,006
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    74,570
<SALES>                                         69,330
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,330
<CGS>                                           13,422
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,422
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                49,108
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,123
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,500)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,623
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,623
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.46
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SS.1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Orphan Medical, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Timothy G. McGrath, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Timothy G. McGrath

Timothy G. McGrath

Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

May 10, 2004





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Orphan Medical, Inc. and will be retained by Orphan Medical, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.









---
##  

**EXHIBIT99.1**

Contact:         Robert E. Wheaton                         President, CEO                         Star Buffet, Inc.                         (480) 425-0397

FOR IMMEDIATERELEASE:  Wednesday, April 25, 2007

STAR BUFFET, INC. FILESFORM 10-K FOR FY 2007

**SCOTTSDALE,AZ — April 25, 2007 — Star Buffet, Inc. (NASDAQ: STRZ) today filed a Form 10-Kwith the Securities and Exchange Commission for its fiscal year ending January29, 2007.  Following are the highlights:**

**StarBuffet, Inc. had revenues of $58.6 million and net income of $716,000, or $0.23per share on a diluted basis, for the fifty-two weeks ended January 29, 2007.**

**SafeHarbor Statement**

**Statementsthat are not historical facts contained in this release are forward-lookingstatements that involve risks and uncertainties, and actual results could varymaterially from the descriptions contained herein due to many factors,including, but not limited to, product demand and market acceptance risks, theeffect of economic conditions, the impact of competitive products and pricing,the results of financing efforts, implementation of the Company’s acquisitionand strategic alliance strategy, the effect of the Company’s accountingpolicies and other risks detailed in the Company’s Form 10-K for its fiscalyear ended January 29, 2007, and other filings with the Securities and ExchangeCommission.  Copies of all of the Company’sfilings with the SEC are available to the public on the SEC’s web site athttp://www.sec.gov.  The Companyundertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements.**

**AboutStar Buffet**

Star Buffet is amulti-concept restaurant operator.  As ofApril 25, 2007, Star Buffet, through its subsidiaries, operates 14 franchisedHomeTown Buffets, six JB’s Family restaurants, six Whistle Junctionrestaurants, four BuddyFreddys restaurants, four K-BOB’S Steakhouses, three HolidayHouse Family restaurants, two Western Sizzlin restaurants, one JJ North’sCounty Buffet, one Pecos Diamond Steakhouse and one Casa Bonita Mexican themerestaurant.

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 31, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 51769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17267]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL05-145-000]


Emergency Petition and Complaint of District of Columbia Public 
Service Commission; Notice of Filing of Emergency Petition and 
Complaint

August 25, 2005.
    Take notice that on August 25, 2005, the District of Columbia 
Public Service Commission (DC Commission) filed an emergency petition 
and complaint. The DC Commission seeks action by the U.S. Department of 
Energy under section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and by this 
Commission under FPA sections 207 and 309 requiring the operation of 
the Potomac River Generating Station power plant owned and operated by 
Mirant Corporation and its public utility subsidiaries.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is 
not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons 
other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8fc9caddccc0e1e3e6e1eadcfaffffe0fdfbcfe9eafdeca1e8e0f9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8acccfd8c9c5e4e6e3e4efd9fffafae5f8fecaeceff8e9a4ede5fc">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: No later than 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 29, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-17267 Filed 8-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN RE B.T.F.

No. COA07-1009.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 4, 2007.

Certification Date December 27, 2007.

Appeal from Gaston (06JT346, 06JT347).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.