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

     I, John F. Welch, Chief Executive Officer of CNA Surety Corporation (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

          (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the quarterly
     period ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the
     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 Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.

                                                   /s/ JOHN F. WELCH
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          JOHN F. WELCH
                                          PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                    CNA SURETY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                         EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATION

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             YEAR ENDED      YEAR ENDED      YEAR ENDED
                                                            DECEMBER 31,    DECEMBER 31,    DECEMBER 31,
                                                                2000            1999            1998
                                                            ------------    ------------    ------------
                                                            (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
<S>                                                         <C>             <C>             <C>
Net Income..............................................      $53,602         $56,498          $45,515
                                                              =======         =======          =======
Shares:
Weighted average shares outstanding.....................       42,889          43,957           43,625
  Weighted average shares of options exercised..........            9              17               97
                                                              -------         -------          -------
Total weighted average shares outstanding...............       42,898          43,974           43,722
  Effect of dilutive options............................          130             146              153
                                                              -------         -------          -------
Total weighted average shares outstanding, assuming
  dilution..............................................       43,028          44,120           43,875
                                                              =======         =======          =======
Earnings per share......................................      $  1.25         $  1.28          $  1.04
                                                              =======         =======          =======
Earnings per share, assuming dilution...................      $  1.25         $  1.28          $  1.04
                                                              =======         =======          =======
</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 26, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-30392

Summary Calendar

 

FABIAN HARPER,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DOUG DOURRETTE, Etc.; ET AL.,

Defendants,

DOUG DOURRETTE, Assistant Warden; STERLING, Lieutenant

Colonial; RONNY CONSTANCE, Captain,

Defendants-Appellants.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 03-CV-638

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

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Doug Dourrette, Lt. Col. Sterling, and Capt. Ronny Constance

appeal from the district court’s summary judgment denial of

qualified immunity on inmate Fabian Harper’s failure to protect

claim. We have jurisdiction to determine whether the defendants

are entitled to qualified immunity after accepting all of

Harper’s factual allegations as true and to determine, as a
No. 04-30392

-2-

matter of law, whether their conduct was objectively reasonable. 

See Colston v. Barnhart, 130 F.3d 96, 98-99 (5th Cir. 1997).

The appellants contend that Harper’s failure to seek

protection by means other than a verbal request provided them

with insufficient facts from which to infer that there existed a

significant risk of serious harm and, therefore, their inaction

was objectively reasonable. However, for purposes of this

appeal, Harper’s factual allegation must be taken as true that as

the result of his oral request for protection, the appellants

possessed the requisite knowledge of a substantial risk of

serious harm. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842. The pertinent

question is therefore whether the appellants, possessing actual

knowledge of a substantial risk to Harper’s safety, responded

reasonably to that risk. See id. at 844. The appellants have

not made that showing; their own affidavits attest that an inmate

who makes a verbal request for protection is not returned to his

cell but is instead sent to Administrative Segregation until his

request is reviewed by the Threat Review Board. They have

therefore failed to show an entitlement to qualified immunity. 

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frankie Hernandez, Appellant.

[799 NYS2d 739]

Application by the appellant for a writ of coram nobis to vacate, on the ground *499of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated August 26, 2002 *(People v Hernandez,*297 AD2d 389 [2002]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 12, 1997.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see *Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J., S. Miller, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Exhibit



        





March 17, 2016                                                                                                                        Exhibit 10.102                      
To the Lenders parties to the
Credit Agreement referred
to below
Re:    Request for Extension of Termination Date
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Pursuant to that certain Third Amended and Restated Five-Year Credit Agreement, dated as of April 16, 2015 (as amended, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the "Credit Agreement", terms defined therein and not otherwise defined herein being used herein as defined therein), among DTE Gas Company (the "Company"), the Lenders (as defined in the Credit Agreement) parties thereto and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Administrative Agent for the Lenders (the "Administrative Agent"), the Company hereby requests that, effective as of April 16, 2016, the Termination Date be extended for a period of one year from the Termination Date now in effect, as provided in Section 2.18 of the Credit Agreement.
You must give notice to the Administrative Agent whether or not you agree to the requested extension. Under Section 2.18(b) of the Credit Agreement, such notice generally must be received no later than 10 Business Days after the Administrative Agent receives this request; however, the Company hereby waives this deadline and sets the Lender Notice Date as April 6, 2016. 
The Company hereby certifies that the following statements are true on the date hereof, and will be true on the extension of the Termination Date:
(1)    no Default or Event of Default shall have occurred and be continuing on the applicable Extension Date and immediately after giving effect thereto; and
(2)    the representations and warranties of the Borrower set forth in the Credit Agreement are true and correct on and as of the applicable Extension Date and after giving effect thereto, as though made on and as of such date (or to the extent that such representations and warranties specifically refer to an earlier date, as of such earlier date).
This notice and request is subject in all respects to the terms of the Credit Agreement, is irrevocable and shall be effective only if received by the Administrative Agent no later than March 17, 2016.
DTE GAS COMPANY




By : /s/David R. Murphy
Title:  Assistant Treasurer


1
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.2.22

            SCHEDULE OF MATERIAL DIFFERENCES AMONG PERCENTAGE LEASES

                  The following lists of material differences between the
Percentage Lease filed as Exhibit 10.2 and the Percentage Lease identified by
the Exhibit number below and is being filed pursuant to Instruction 2 to Item
601 of Regulation S-K.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Exhibit                                                             Annual Base            Percentage Rent
Number            Percentage Lease Description                         Rent                    Formula
------            ----------------------------                      -----------         ----------------------
<S>               <C>                                                <C>                <C>
10.2.22           Lease Agreement dated as of October 29,            $806,000           31.0% of room revenue
                  1997 by and between Sunstone Hotel Investors,                         up to $216,667, plus
                  L.P. as lessor and Sunstone Hotel Properties,                         60.5% of room revenue
                  Inc., as lessee, for the Holiday Inn                                  in excess of $216,667
                  located in Mesa, Arizona                                              plus 5% of food and
                                                                                        beverage revenue, plus
                                                                                        100% of sublease and
                                                                                        concession revenue and
                                                                                        other net revenues.
</TABLE>
MOORE v. RHODES.

No. COA07-1394.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 3, 2008.

Certification Date June 23, 2008.

Appeal from Columbus (05CVS489).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 407 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 407

 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
   to designate a portion of Interstate Route 14 as a high priority 
                   corridor, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 26, 2007

 Mrs. Hutchison (for herself and Mr. Cornyn) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
   to designate a portion of Interstate Route 14 as a high priority 
                   corridor, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDOR.

    (a) In General.--Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 105 Stat. 
2032) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(46) The Interstate Route 14 corridor from Wilmington, 
        North Carolina, westward to El Paso, Texas, as follows:
                    ``(A) In the State of South Carolina, through 
                Myrtle Beach and Orangeburg.
                    ``(B) In the State of Georgia, through Augusta, 
                Warner Robins, and Columbus.
                    ``(C) In the State of Alabama, through Tuskegee, 
                Montgomery, and Camden.
                    ``(D) In the State of Mississippi, through 
                Waynesboro, Laurel, Brookhaven, and Natchez.
                    ``(E) In the State of Louisiana, through Vidalia, 
                Ferriday, Jonesville, Pineville, Alexandria, and 
                Leesville.
                    ``(F) In the State of Texas, through Jasper, 
                Woodville, Corrigan, Lufkin, Trinity, Livingston, 
                Huntsville, Madisonville, Bryan/College Station, 
                Cameron, Hearne, Brady, Temple, Killeen, Lampasas, 
                Menard, Sonora, and El Paso.''.
    (b) Limitation on Use of Certain Funds.--Funds allocated under 
section 1927 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act (Public Law 109-59; 119 Stat. 1483) to the 
State of Georgia to conduct a study for a portion of Interstate Route 
14 (including the corridor designated under paragraph (46)(B) of 
section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
of 1991 (as amended by subsection (a))) shall be used only to conduct 
that study.
                                 <all>
```
IN RE S.J.E.

No. COA07-1047.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 21, 2008.

Certification Date November 10, 2008.

Appeal from Durham (06J335).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part; vacated in part and remanded.
Independent Accountants' Report



Board of Directors
Community Investors Bancorp, Inc.


We  have  reviewed  the  accompanying   consolidated   statements  of  financial
condition, earnings, comprehensive income, and cash flows of Community Investors
Bancorp,  Inc. as of March 31, 2000,  and for the three and  nine-month  periods
then ended. The financial statements are the responsibility of the Corporation's
management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute  of  Certified  Public  Accountants.  A review  of  interim  financial
information consists principally of applying analytical  procedures to financial
data and making  inquiries of persons  responsible  for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with  generally  accepted  auditing  standards,  the  objective  of which is the
expression of an opinion  regarding the financial  statements  taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material  modifications that should
be made to the  accompanying  financial  statements for them to be in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have  previously  audited,  in accordance  with generally  accepted  auditing
standards,  the  consolidated  statement of  financial  condition as of June 30,
1999, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders' equity,
and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented  herein) and in our report
dated August 19, 1999, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated
financial  statements.  In  our  opinion,  the  information  set  forth  in  the
accompanying  consolidated statement of financial condition as of June 30, 1999,
is fairly  stated,  in all material  respects,  in relation to the  consolidated
statement of financial condition from which it has been derived.


/s/GRANT THORNTON LLP



Cincinnati, Ohio
May 10, 2000
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3232 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3232

 To authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor to 
 James Megellas, formerly of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, and currently of 
 Colleyville, Texas, for acts of valor on January 28, 1945, during the 
                  Battle of the Bulge in World War II.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 8, 2008

  Mr. Cornyn introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor to 
 James Megellas, formerly of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, and currently of 
 Colleyville, Texas, for acts of valor on January 28, 1945, during the 
                  Battle of the Bulge in World War II.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION AND REQUEST FOR AWARD OF MEDAL OF HONOR TO 
              JAMES MEGELLAS FOR ACTS OF VALOR DURING BATTLE OF THE 
              BULGE.

    (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized and requested to 
award the Medal of Honor under section 3741 of title 10, United States 
Code, to James Megellas, formerly of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, and 
currently of Colleyville, Texas, for the acts of valor described in 
subsection (b).
    (b) Action Described.--The acts of valor referred to in subsection 
(a) are the actions of James Megellas on January 28, 1945, in 
Herresbach, Belgium, during the Battle of the Bulge, during World War 
II, when, as a first lieutenant in the 82d Airborne Division, he led a 
surprise and devastating attack on a much larger advancing enemy force, 
killing and capturing a large number and causing others to flee, 
single-handedly destroying an attacking German Mark V tank with two 
hand-held grenades, and then leading his men in clearing and seizing 
Herresbach.
    (c) Waiver of Time Limitations.--The award under subsection (a) may 
be made without regard to the time limitations specified in section 
3744(b) of title 10, United States Code, or any other time limitation 
established by law or regulation with respect to the awarding of 
certain medals to persons who served in the Army.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18. U.S.C.
§1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Equity Office
Properties Trust, the general partner of EOP Operating Limited Partnership (the Company), each
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to his / her knowledge, on the date hereof:  (a)
    the Form 10-K/A of the Company for the annual period ended December
31, 2004, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. Date: May 4, 2005 /s/ Richard D. KincaidRichard D. KincaidPresident and Chief Executive Officer
of Equity Office Properties Trust, the general partner
of EOP Operating Limited Partnership Date: May 4, 2005 /s/ Marsha C. WilliamsMarsha C. WilliamsExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of Equity Office Properties Trust, the general partner
of EOP Operating Limited Partnership
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 21.1

        METROMEDIA FIBER NETWORK, INC. & SUBSIDIARIES AS OF MARCH 17, 2000

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

    NAME                                             JURISDICTION       D/B/A
    ----                                             ------------       -----
<S>                                                       <C>            <C>
Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc.                            DE

Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc.                   DE

Metromedia Fiber Network of Illinois, Inc.                DE

Metromedia Fiber Network of New Jersey, Inc.              DE

Metromedia Fiber Network of NYC, Inc.                     DE

International Optical Network, L.L.C.                     DE             ION
 (f/k/a MFNRAC, L.L.C.)

MFN of VA, L.L.C.                                         VA

MFN Purchasing, Inc.                                      DE


MFN International, Inc.                                   DE

MFN Holdings GmbH                                         Germany

Metromedia Fiber Network GmbH                             Germany

Metromedia Fiber Network Services GmbH                    Germany

Metromedia Fiber Network    B.V.                          Netherlands

Abovenet Communications, Inc.                             DE

Paix Net, Inc.                                            DE

Communications Systems Development, Inc.                  DE

Metromedia Fiber Network Europe Finance, Inc.             DE

</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Bryan Keith HESS.

No. 465PA07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 11, 2008.

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C.App. ___, 648 S.E.2d 913 (2007), affirming an order dated 14 July 2006 by Judge Michael E. Beale in Superior Court, Rowan County. Heard in the Supreme Court 19 March 2008.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Christopher W. Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Haakon Thorsen, Charlotte, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.

Justice HUDSON did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.