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 of Universal Stainless & Alloy Products, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 9, 2010



|                                                |  |  |  |                                                                 
|----------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Dennis M. Oates                             |  |  |  | /s/ Douglas M. McSorley                                         
|Dennis M. Oates                                 |  |  |  | Douglas M. McSorley                                             
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Vice President of Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|(Principal Executive Officer)                   |  |  |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 734 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the rate of the 

tentative minimum tax for noncorporate taxpayers to 24 percent. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 1, 2007 

Mr. SPECTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce 

the rate of the tentative minimum tax for noncorporate 

taxpayers to 24 percent. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘AMT Rate Reduction 

5 Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN RATE OF TENTATIVE MINIMUM TAX 

7 FOR NONCORPORATE TAXPAYERS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Clause (i) of section 55(b)(1)(A) 

9 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to noncor10 porate taxpayers) is amended to read as follows: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 734 IS

1 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a 

2 taxpayer other than a corporation, the ten3 tative minimum tax for the taxable year 

4 is— 

5 ‘‘(I) 24 percent of the taxable ex6 cess, reduced by 

7 ‘‘(II) the alternative minimum 

8 tax foreign tax credit for the taxable 

9 year.’’. 

10 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subparagraph (A) 

11 of section 55(b)(1) of such Code is amended by striking 

12 clause (iii). 

13 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

14 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

15 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40070

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAIME REYES-BRACAMONTES, also known as Jaime Reyes-Baracamontes

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CR-452-ALL

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jaime ReyesBracamontes has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Reyes-Bracamontes has not

responded. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses

no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-40070

2

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Old
PanAmSat Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 1997 and is 
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                     286,752,727
<SECURITIES>                               330,000,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,162,565
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (200,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           313,370,127
<PP&E>                                     872,673,532
<DEPRECIATION>                            (169,748,366)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,939,387,163
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      127,673,916
<BONDS>                                    645,808,409
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      351,732,130
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 658,645,319
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,939,387,163
<SALES>                                     89,247,374
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            89,247,374
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               64,255,286
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          (4,878,912)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            254,871,000
<INCOME-TAX>                               108,611,347
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        146,259,653
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               146,259,653
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report of On2 Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Anthony Prinicipe, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section. 1350, as adopted pursuant 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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.


/s/ ANTHONY PRINCIPE
---------------------------------
Anthony Principe
Chief Financial Officer
On2 Technologies, Inc.

March 29, 2004
# CE2004070EN.01020101.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/201 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/201

---

(2004/C 70 E/217)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3031/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Community subsidies in the cultural sphere

Subject:

Associations play a central role in any country's social development, not only in terms of active involvement and self-organisation on the part of citizens, but also of the services which associations provide, particularly in culture and sport. Recreational associations are often the main channels for publicising and preserving the cultural heritage of many regions, thus contributing to cultural wealth and diversity within the European Union. Associations are responsible for amateur drama, folk clubs, brass bands, music schools and a whole range of exhibition spaces for art. Resources, particularly funds, are generally in short supply to cover the working requirements of these associations in the tasks they perform for the community, above all in providing leisure time activities. I personally encounter this hard fact with some frequency, and likewise the lack of available information as to sources of support, particularly at Community level.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| — | What Community resources exist to support culture, particularly for recreational associations? |
| --- | --- |

—

What Community resources exist to support culture, particularly for recreational associations?

| — | In the specific case of wind band associations, what Community aids exist for buying instruments and support material for music schools, and doing up auditoria and halls to perform in? |
| --- | --- |

—

In the specific case of wind band associations, what Community aids exist for buying instruments and support material for music schools, and doing up auditoria and halls to perform in?

| — | What are the global Community budget totals authorised and actually paid out for culture, and how have these totals varied between 1994 and 2003? What is the breakdown of this total by Member State and number of projects funded? |
| --- | --- |

—

What are the global Community budget totals authorised and actually paid out for culture, and how have these totals varied between 1994 and 2003? What is the breakdown of this total by Member State and number of projects funded?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2003)

(20 November 2003)

The Commission is in the process of obtaining the necessary information to answer your question and will inform you of the results of its inquiries as soon as possible.

---
In the Matter of K.L.C., K.R.N. (Appealed By: Shannon Nealey (Mother)).

No. 470P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Shannon Nealey, Pro Se.

Adrian Lapalucci, Southport, for Samuel Collins.

Paula Greene, Elizabethtown, for GAL.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Respondent on the 9th day of October 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.4

                              AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE
                                       TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

        The Employment Agreement entered into on August 25, 1994, by and
between Jerry Willits, (hereinafter the "Employee") and Nickelodeon Theater
Co., Inc., is hereby amended as follows:

        WHEREAS, the name of Nickelodeon Theater Co., Inc. was changed by
amendment to the Company's Article of Incorporation on August 25, 1995, to
CinemaStar Luxury Theaters, Inc., (hereinafter the "Company"); and

        WHEREAS, the Company by and through its Board of Directors believes it
to be in the best interests of the Company to extend the Employment Agreement
of Employee;

        NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises and the promises
herein made, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree
as follows:

1.  As an inducement for Employee to remain in the employ of Company for a
period of time beyond the term specified in the Employment Agreement of August
25, 1994, Company hereby agrees to extend the term of that Agreement for a
period of five (5) years commencing upon the execution hereof by the parties,
unless sooner terminated in accordance with other provisions of the Employment
Agreement that is amended hereby.

2.  Paragraph 2. of the Employment Agreement of August 25, 1994 is hereby
deleted in its entirety.

3.  Except for the modifications specified in this Amendment Number One, all of
the remaining terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect for the newly stated term of this Amendment Number One.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Amendment
Number One on this fifth day of December, 1996.


"Company"                                     "Employee"

CinemaStar Luxury Theaters, Inc.
a California corporation


By: /s/ John Ellison, Jr.                      /s/ Jerry Willits
    -------------------------                  ---------------------------
    John Ellison, Jr.,                          Jerry Willits
    President &
    Chief Executive Officer
STATE v. George Thomas WILKERSON.

No. 170A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 13, 2008.

Barbara Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, Thomas K. Maher, for Wilkerson.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th day of August 2008 by State of NC for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. State of NC shall have up to and including the 11th day of October 2008 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 13th day of August 2008."
IN RE A.E.

No. COA08-556.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 21, 2008.

Certification Date November 10, 2008.

Appeal from Chatham (06JA16).

Case reported without published opinion. Vacated and remanded.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 40004 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Jay Alan Fisher,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:15

- CR

- 853

- 1

Before **Southwick, Oldham,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  * Jay Alan Fisher, federal prisoner # 91672

- 379, ple d guilty to coercion and enticement of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 422(b) . H e was sentenced in 2016 to 120 months of imprisonment and 15 years of supervised release. Fisher now challenges the district court’s de nial of his motion for

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 10, 2021 Lyle W. C ayce Clerk Case: 21-40004 Document: 00516088745 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2021No. 21

- 40004

2 compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argues that the district court’s determination that there were no “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warranting a reduction was based on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. We review the district court’s decision to deny a prisoner’s motion for compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Cooper , 996 F.3d 283, 28 6 (5th Cir. 2021) . The district court concluded that Fisher was not enti tled to an early release because his medical conditions, coupled with his fear of being re

- infected with COVID

- 19, did not constitute an extraordinary or compelling circumstance . The district court also expressly found that the severity of his offense

— a relevant factor for consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

— weighed against his early release. Fisher acknowledges the severity of his offense but argues that the district court did not consider whether the severity of the offense outweighed his extra ordinary and compelling reasons for a reduction

. H e fails to show , though, that the district court abused its discretion in balancing the factors that he raised in support of his motion. See Cooper , 996 F.3d at 28 6

. T he district court’s judgment is **AFFIR MED** 

. Case: 21-40004 Document: 00516088745 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/10/2021
----

(2004/C 65 E/232)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2785/03

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 September 2003)

Subject:   Fatal accidents at work

Every day and increasingly frequently accidents occur at the workplace. More and more people are being killed, seriously injured or disabled. These accidents are mainly caused by failure on the part of businesses to comply with requirements concerning the safety of workers, as well as by an increasingly hectic pace of work and a heavy workload. For these reasons such accidents are aptly referred to in Italian as ‘omicidi bianchi’ (white murders).

In view of the legal bases the Commission needs to take action in this area, it may consider that various provisions on the subject, including criminal liability, have an impact on distortions of the rules of competition.

What steps will the Commission take to harmonise legislation on safety at the workplace, the criminal liability of negligent employers who cause such fatal accidents and compensation for victims' families?

Answer given by Mr Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that the reduction of occupational accidents, and in particular fatal ones, should be a priority. In line with this, Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (1) imposes on the employer the obligation to be in possession of an assessment of the risks to safety and health at work. In carrying out this obligation, the employer shall take the measures necessary for the safety and health protection of workers, including prevention of occupational risks and provision of information and training, as well as provision of the necessary organisation and means.

Moreover, the employer, as provided in this Directive, should keep a list of occupational accidents resulting in a worker being unfit for work for more than three working days. The same Directive establishes that the employer shall draw up, for the responsible authorities and in accordance with national laws and/or practices, reports on occupational accidents suffered by his workers.

Several other health and safety Directives have a role in occupational accident prevention. For example: Council Directive 89/654/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum health and safety requirements for the workplace (2) and Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (3).

As the Honourable Member is aware, Union Directives on health and safety at work have to be transposed into national law. It is the responsibility of national authorities to ensure adequate controls and supervision of the implementation of the national legislation. The Commission does not enjoy any powers in the field of criminal law, or in relation to compensation schemes in case of occupational accidents, which fall entirely within the responsibility of national authorities.

----

(1)OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.

(2)OJ L 393, 30.12.1989.

(3)OJ L 393, 30.12.1989.

----
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00498-CV

In re David Anthony Martinez

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BELL COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Pemberton

Filed: August 29, 2008
STATE v. SIMPSON.

No. COA08-296.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 7, 2008.

Certification Date October 27, 2008.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (06CRS232914).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

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 LIN TV Corp. for
the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Gary R. Chapman,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, William A. Cunningham, Vice President
and Controller, Deborah R. Jacobson, Vice President of Corporate Development
and Treasurer, and Peter E. Maloney, Vice President of Finance, each hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

|                   |  |                                                                                                   
|------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 5, 2003 |  | /s/ Gary R. Chapman

Gary R. Chapman
Chief Executive Officer                                      
|                   |  |                                                                                                   
|                   |  |                                                                                                   
|Dated: May 5, 2003 |  | /s/ William A. Cunningham

William A. Cunningham
Vice President and Controller                    
|                   |  |                                                                                                   
|                   |  |                                                                                                   
|Dated: May 5, 2003 |  | /s/ Deborah R. Jacobson

Deborah R. Jacobson
Vice President of Corporate Development and
Treasurer
|                   |  |                                                                                                   
|                   |  |                                                                                                   
|Dated: May 5, 2003 |  | /s/ Peter E. Maloney

Peter E. Maloney
Vice President of Finance