alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U. S. C.SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Amendment No.1 on Form10-QSB/A Quarterly Report of Vistula Communications Services, Inc.(the “Company”) forthe period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, RupertGalliers-Pratt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to my bestknowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, adopted pursuant to§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1)              the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2)              the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ RUPERT GALLIERS-PRATT |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   | Rupert Galliers-Pratt     |   |
|   | Chief Executive Officer   |

 

 

Dated:  January 30, 2006

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to VistulaCommunications Services, Inc. and will be retained by VistulaCommunications Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Document

Exhibit 10.7
CASS INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC
Summary Profit Sharing Program


The purpose of the profit sharing program is to facilitate the Company’s continued growth and success by providing rewards that are commensurate with achievement, thereby creating an incentive for superior performance and improved results for shareholders. All employees of Cass Information Systems are eligible to participate in the program, unless specifically excluded due to their employment category, such as temporary staff or if their performance is not meeting the minimum expectations.
The amount of the profit sharing fund available for distribution is set by the Board of Directors and has historically been 12.5% of the company’s net profits before taxes for the period of distribution.
Distributions are not guaranteed and the company may distribute profit sharing benefits on any schedule and in any manner that it deems appropriate. Currently, distributions are made on a semi-annual basis.
Allocations to employee groups eligible to participate are divided into exempt and non-exempt pools based on the salaries of each group over the corresponding period. The non-exempt pool is distributed to each eligible employee based on a factor of salary and performance score. The exempt pool is distributed to all exempt employees considering factors such as position, salary grade and individual performance. Specific allocations are made out of the exempt pool to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and other executive officers, including named executive officers (NEOs) as follows:
CEO – The CEO receives a percentage of the total profit sharing pool based on the change in net income before taxes (NIBT) from the prior year and is set to provide a target percentage of base salary at target performance of 45%. The amount paid to the CEO can range from 0% up to a maximum of 70% of base pay.
Executive Officers – A percentage of the total profit sharing pool is provided for distribution to other executive officers based on the change in NIBT from the prior year and is set to provide a target percentage of base salaries at target performance of 40%. The total funds provided for distribution to the executive officers can range from 0% up to a maximum of 60% of base pay. The amount of funds in this pool is distributed to each individual executive officer by the CEO based on a subjective evaluation considering internal equity and other individual factors related to performance.
Individual distributions to exempt employees, other than the CEO and executive officers, as a percent of salary are subject to set limits based on each individual’s pay grade and any payment in excess of these percentages shall require the review and approval of the President or Chief Operating Officer of each business unit and the CEO. Payments in excess of the set limits for the CEO and executive officers need approval from the Board of Director’s Compensation Committee.
EXHIBIT 10.8


UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS
IN LIEU OF SPECIAL MEETING
November 18, 1997

RESOLVED, that Future Petroleum Corporation is hereby authorized to enter 
into certain contracts, the terms of which are stated below, with the following 
individuals:

C. Carl Price;
Robert Price;
Don Wm. Reynolds.

These contracts are for a term of five (5) years from November 18, 1997.  This 
unanimous consent agreement will also serve as the contracts between Future 
Petroleum Corporation and the above individuals.

In consideration for the rental of certain property controlled by him and used 
as a storage yard by Future Petroleum Corporation, Mr. Robert Price is 
guaranteed the annual sum of not less than $15,600.  The Corporation, at its 
discretion, may make this rental payment in cash or shares of Future Petroleum 
Corporation restricted common stock.  The price per share for stock in lieu of 
cash payment through January 31, 1998, is the average midpoint price between
bid and ask for the five (5) days prior to November 18, 1997, which is forty
-two cents ($0.42) and shall be prorated from November 18, 1997, to December
31, 1997.  The price per share for stock in lieu of cash payment after 
January 31, 1998, will be the average midpoint price between bid and ask for
the five (5) days prior to the agreed date of payment.  Payment shall be 
made on an annual basis by January 31 following the year of rental.  The 
stock will be registered at the time it is issued in lieu of cash payment.  
Mr. Price is granted the right to receive the total amount of his annual 
rental payment for 1998 at any time prior to January 31, 1998.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this unanimous consent, 
in one or more counterparts, as of the 18th day of November, 1997.

FUTURE PETROLEUM CORPORATION          AGREED TO BY:

By /s/ B. Carl Price
B. Carl Price

By /s/Robert Price
Robert Price

By /s/ Don Wm. Reynolds 
Don Wm. Reynolds

By /s/Charles Dean Laudeman
Charles Dean Laudeman

By /s/ D. William Reynolds, Jr.
D. William Reynolds, Jr.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.R., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, JEFFERSON PARK 

CARRIER ANNEX, Chicago, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1110

Issued: July 29, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On July 11, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a June 30, 2021 merit decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 22-1110.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the June 30, 2021 decision was December 27, 2021. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until July 11, 2022,more than 180 days after the

June 30, 2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-1110 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered 

a reason to explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient 

to establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e).
2

OWCP within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal 

docketed as No. 22-1110, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-1110 is dismissed.

Issued: July 29, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id. 

at § 501.6(d).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 10, 2019

p0904 

# Order

Clerk September 10, 2019

157276

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 157276

COA: 333904

Calhoun CC: 2016

- 000124

- FC

ROBERT TERRAIL WILLIAMS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of September 12, 2018, the application for leave to appeal the November

21, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in

People v Ames (Docket No. 156077). On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been

denied in Ames on June 26, 2019, 504 Mich ___ (2019), the app lication is again

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented

should be reviewed by this Court.
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Robert Busque

The state of Connecticut’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 120 (AC 9727), is granted, limited to the following issues:

> “Did the Appellate Court improperly conclude:

> “1. In reviewing a nonconstitutional claim, that evidence was more prejudicial than probative, when the claim was unpreserved?

> “2. In ignoring the trial court’s narrow ruling on admissibility, and instead examining the details of testimony admitted after the ruling, in deciding whether the court abused its discretion in admitting such evidence as was relevant to the limited purpose?

> “3. In finding the limited use of the evidence harmful, when the jury was already well aware of the defendant’s misconduct?”

*911The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14794.

*James M. Ralls,*assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition.

*Susan M. Hankins,*assistant public defender, in opposition.

Decided June 17, 1993
**Exhibit 23**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 2-80037, 33-18081,33-23793, 33-41485, 33-45479, 33-55825, 33-58851, 33-64345, 333-08141, 333-113532 and 333-121776 ofSears, Roebuck and Co.; Registration Statement No. 333-92082 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and SearsRoebuck Acceptance Corp.; Registration Statement Nos. 33-64775, 333-18591, 333-43309 and 333-120219of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears, Roebuck and Co. Deferred Compensation Plan; RegistrationStatement No. 333-102114 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the Sears 401(K) Savings Plan (formerly, TheSavings and Profit Sharing Fund of Sears Employees and the Sears 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan) andLands’ End, Inc. Retirement Plan; Registration Statement No. 333-38131 of Sears, Roebuck and Co.and the Sears Associate Stock Ownership Plan; Registration Statement No. 333-52056 of Sears,Roebuck and Co. and the 2000 Employee Stock Plan; Registration Statement No. 333-72514 of Sears,Roebuck and Co. and the 2001 Broad-Based Stock Option Plan; and Registration Statement No.333-87942 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the 2002 Non-Employee Director Stock Plan, of our reportdated March 9, 2004, February 11, 2005 as to Note 18 (which report expresses an unqualified opinionand includes explanatory paragraphs relating to changes in accounting principles for goodwill in2002 and methods of accounting for credit card securitizations, derivative instruments and hedgingactivities in 2001, and the restatement discussed in Note 18), appearing in the Annual Report onForm 10-K/A of Sears, Roebuck and Co. for the year ended January 3, 2004.
/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHELLP     Deloitte & Touche LLP
Chicago, Illinois
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2342

___________

Sebastian Rucci, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Missouri Board for Architects, *

Professional Engineers, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Professional Land Surveyors and *

Landscape Architects, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 4, 2005

Filed: February 9, 2005

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The Missouri Board for Architects, Professional Engineers, Professional Land

Surveyors and Landscape Architects (the Board) appeals the district court’s denial of

its motions (1) to dismiss the action as barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and (2) to

alter or amend the order denying the motion to dismiss. We reverse the denial of both

motions. 
-2-

Sebastian Rucci filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Board, seeking

declaratory relief and alleging that the Board had violated and continued to violate

his Fourteenth Amendment rights by promulgating and enforcing arbitrary and

irrational licensing requirements. The district court concluded that the suit fell under

the Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), exception to Eleventh Amendment

immunity, which applies when a plaintiff seeks prospective injunctive relief in federal

court against state officials. The court concluded that, although Mr. Rucci had not

named the Board members, the Board had waived the Ex parte Young requirement

that the state officials be named through Mo. Rev. Stat. § 327.031 (2001), which

states the Board may “sue and be sued . . . and its members need not be named as

parties.” We disagree, because nothing in section 327.031 manifests a clear and

unequivocal waiver of immunity from suit. Cf. Burk v. Beene, 948 F.2d 489, 493

(8th Cir. 1991) (waiver of sovereign immunity must be “clear and unequivocal”).

Thus, we conclude that Mr. Rucci’s suit against the Board was barred by the

Eleventh Amendment, and we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with

this opinion. On remand, Mr. Rucci should be given leave to amend his complaint

to name the Board members as defendants.

______________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5177 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5177

To delay the implementation of certain final rules of the Environmental 
Protection Agency in States until accreditation classes are held in the 
                States for a period of at least 1 year.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 2010

 Mr. Rehberg introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To delay the implementation of certain final rules of the Environmental 
Protection Agency in States until accreditation classes are held in the 
                States for a period of at least 1 year.

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

SECTION 1. DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall delay the 
implementation of the final rule entitled ``Lead; Renovation, Repair, 
and Painting Program; Lead Hazard Information Pamphlet; Notice of 
Availability; Final Rule'' (73 Fed. Reg. 21692 (April 22, 2008)), and 
the final rule entitled ``Lead; Amendment to the Opt-out and 
Recordkeeping Provisions in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting 
Program'', signed by the Administrator on April 22, 2010, in each State 
until such time as accredited certified renovator classes have been 
held in the State, for a period of at least 1 year, to train 
contractors in practices necessary for compliance with the final rules, 
as determined by the Administrator.
    (b) Notification.--The Administrator shall--
            (1) monitor each State to determine when classes described 
        in subsection (a) are offered in the State; and
            (2) provide to each Member of Congress representing the 
        State a notification describing--
                    (A) the location and time of each such class held 
                in the State; and
                    (B) the date on which the classes have been held 
                for the 1-year period described in subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.4


 


AGREEMENT
TO TERMINATE


STOCK
PURCHASE AGREEMENT


 


Effective
as of February 28, 2022 (the “Effective Date”), DSS, Inc. (the “Buyer”), and Alset EHome International Inc. (the
“Seller”) enter into and agree as provided in this Agreement to Terminate Stock Purchase Agreement (the “Termination
Agreement”).


 


RECITALS:


 


	 	A.	Buyer
    and Seller are parties to a Stock Purchase Agreement dated into January 18, 2022 wherein the Buyer was to purchase 877,248,065 of
    the common shares of Alset International Limited owned by Seller (the “Purchase Agreement”).
	 	 	 
	 	B.	The
    parties now desire to terminate the Purchase Agreement as provided in this Termination Agreement.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Buyer and Seller agree
as follows:


 


	 	1.	Termination.
    The Purchase Agreement and each of its terms and provisions will in all respects terminate, be canceled and have no further force
    or effect from and after the Effective Date.
	 	 	 
	 	2.	No
    Further Obligations. From and after the Effective Date, no party to the Purchase Agreement will have any further obligation
    under, as a result of or in connection with the Purchase Agreement, and each party to this Termination Agreement releases each of
    the other parties from any such obligation.
	 	 	 
	 	3.	Miscellaneous.
    This Termination Agreement (i) will be binding upon the parties and their respective successors and assigns; (ii) may not be
    modified or amended except by a written instrument signed by each party against whom enforcement of the modification or amendment
    is sought; (iii) may be executed in any number of counterparts, and by any party on a separate counterpart, all of which together
    will constitute one and the same instrument. A signed counterpart of this Agreement faxed, or scanned and emailed, by a party to
    another party will constitute delivery by the sending party to the recipient party, may be treated by the recipient party as an original,
    and will be admissible as evidence of such signed and delivered counterpart.


 


Executed
as of the date first written above.


 


	DSS,
    Inc.	 	Alset
    EHome International Inc.
	 	 	 
	By: 	/s/
    Frank D. Heuszel	 	By: 	/s/
                                            Alan Lui

    

	 	Frank
    D. Heuszel	 	 	Alan
    Lui
	 	Chief
    Executive Officer	 	 	Co-Chief
    Financial Officer
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


The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of T & G2, Inc.
(the "Company"), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

     A.   the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10QSB for the period ended
          March 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
          of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     B.   the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the Company.




Dated: May 18, 2004



/s/ James Farinella
-----------------------------------------------
James Farinella
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

PPC BROADBAND, INC., DBA PPC, FKA JOHN 

MEZZALINGUA ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS RF, LLC,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________ 

2017-1347

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of New York in No. 5:11-cv-00761-GLSDEP, Senior Judge Gary L. Sharpe.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

J. MICHAEL JAKES, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, 

Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for 

plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by JOSE M. RECIO;

ROBERT L. BURNS, II, Reston, VA; JUSTIN A. HENDRIX, 

Palo Alto, CA; JOHN D. COOK, DOUGLAS J. NASH, Barclay 

Damon, LLP, Syracuse, NY; JOHN T. GUTKOSKI, Boston, 

MA.
 

 KIMBALL RICHARD ANDERSON, Winston & Strawn LLP, 

Chicago, IL, argued for defendant-appellant. Also represented by HOWARD I. SHIN, New York, NY; MARK S.

DAVIES, KATHERINE M. KOPP, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Washington, DC; ELIZABETH MOULTON, Menlo 

Park, CA; DANIEL A. RUBENS, New York, NY; JOSEPH P.

LAVELLE, DLA Piper US LLP, Washington, DC.

 CLYDE MOODY SIEBMAN, Siebman, Burg, Phillips & 

Smith, LLP, Sherman, TX, for amicus curiae Samsung 

Electronics Co., Ltd.

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, MAYER and REYNA,

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 March 13, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court