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

| (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 NFC. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: September 9, 2009 |   | /s/    | DAVID J. JOHANNESON         |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------|
|                    |   |   | David J. Johanneson         |
|                    |   |   | Principal Executive Officer |

| Date: September 9, 2009 |   | /s/    | WILLIAM V. MCMENAMIN        |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------|
|                    |   |   | William V. McMenamin        |
|                    |   |   | Principal Financial Officer |

| Date: September 9, 2009 |   | /s/    | DAVID L. DERFELT             |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------|
|                    |   |   | David L. Derfelt             |
|                    |   |   | Principal Accounting Officer |

----
#### STATE v. DIAZ

No. 154 PC.

Case below: 14 N.C. App. 730.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 6 March 1973.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [FEMA-3259-EM] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-3259-EM), dated September 20, 2005, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

October 23, 2005. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this emergency is closed effective October 23, 2005. 

                        (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs, 97.036, Public                               ( print page 65927)                            Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)                     

R. David Paulison, 

Acting Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 05-21709 Filed 10-31-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of D.W., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF PRISONS, FCI TERMINAL 

ISLAND, San Pedro, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1481

Issued: October 30, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $2,722.00.1 The Board notes 

that all petitions for approval of fees for representatives’services are considered under the Board’s 

statutory authority found at section 8127 of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) 

and under its Rules of Procedure found at 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).3

As required by the Board’s regulations, appellant has been afforded written notice of the 

fee requested and provided an opportunity to comment on the fee petition. 4 Attached to the fee 

petition is a signed acknowledgement by appellant consenting to the fee in the amount of 

$2,722.00.

1 FECA (5 U.S.C. § 8127(b)) and its implementing regulations (20 C.F.R. § 501.9) require the Board to review each 

fee petition on its own merits and with regard to the unique facts and issues of each appeal.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8127.

3

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).

4

Id. 
2

The Board has reviewed the fee petition and finds it is in compliance with the Board’s 

Rules of Procedure.

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THATthe fee petition is granted in the amount of $2,722.00.

Issued: October 30, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

5

Id.
<TABLE>
                                     EXHIBIT 11

                                IONICS, INCORPORATED

                          COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                  (Amounts in thousands, except earnings per share)
<CAPTION>
 
                                            
                                            Three Months Ended      Six Months Ended
                                                 June 30,                June 30,    
                                              1997       1996        1997       1996 
<S>                                         <C>        <C>         <C>        <C>
Net income                                  $ 7,269    $ 6,440     $14,241    $12,525

Earnings per common and common
  equivalent share:

  Weighted average number of shares                                
    outstanding                              15,925     15,459      15,895     15,418

  Incremental shares for stock options
    under treasury stock method                 523        638         531        623

  Weighted average number of common and  
    common equivalent shares outstanding     16,448     16,097      16,426     16,041

  Earnings per common and common
    equivalent share                        $   .44    $   .40     $   .87    $   .78

Earnings per common and common equivalent 
   share - assuming full dilution:

  Weighted average number of shares                                
    outstanding                              15,925     15,459      15,895     15,418

  Incremental shares for stock options                             
    under treasury stock method                 523        646         531        638

  Weighted average number of common and 
    common equivalent shares outstanding 
    - assuming full dilution                 16,448     16,105      16,426     16,056

  Earnings per common and common
    equivalent share - assuming                                               
      full dilution                         $   .44    $   .40     $   .87    $   .78

</TABLE>

                                   -14-
/15
MATTHEW SONNY THOMAS JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1628

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 20, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Thomas V. Dannheisser, Judge.

Matthew Sonny Thomas Jr., pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Matthew Pavese, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., WETHERELL and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
#### THE CREEK NATION v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. L-137]

*[Ante,*p. 602; 318 U. S. —]

Indian claims-;, liability of United States for fraud or gross negligence of commission appointed under the Curtis Act and the “Original Creek Agreement” to appraise and sell, town lots.

Decided June 1, 1942; petition dismissed. Plaintiff’s motion for new trial overruled October 5, 1943.

Plaintiff’s petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by the Supreme Court April 12, 1943.
EXHIBIT 32



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 the WMS Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Brian R. Gamache, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify 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 and 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/ Brian R. Gamache   
|Brian R. Gamache       
|Chief Executive Officer
|September 11, 2006     



---



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 the WMS Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott D. Schweinfurth, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify 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 and 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/ Scott D. Schweinfurth
|Scott D. Schweinfurth    
|Chief Financial Officer  
|September 11, 2006
#### In the Matter of the CRIMINAL CASE OF: RUPERT HARRIS and RALPH TROISI, PONDEROSA INSURANCE COMPANY and A-1 BAIL BONDS, SURETIES FOR RUPERT HARRIS, Appellants, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 18333

June 24, 1988

756 P.2d 556

*Carmine J. Coined,*Las Vegas, for Appellants.

*Rex Bell,*District Attorney, *Mitchell M. Cohen,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

*247OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Appellants, sureties for the defendant Rupert Harris, were forced to make payment to respondent, the State of Nevada, on Harris’ forfeited bail bond when he failed to appear for trial in August, 1985. Appellants claim the district court erred in denying their motion to set aside the forfeiture. The motion was premised on noncompliance with NRS 178.508. An affidavit of mailing did not accompany the Notice of Intent to Forfeit, as required by the statute.1 Appellants alleged no other grounds for setting aside the forfeiture.

Appellants concede that they received actual notice of the intent to forfeit the bond and were not prejudiced by the lack of compliance with NRS 178.508. Where there is actual notice, lack of prejudice, and substantial compliance with the statute, a district court’s order forfeiting a bail bond will not be reversed. However, we do not condone the district court’s failure to comply with the requirements of NRS 178.508. Forfeitures are not favored at law, and statutes imposing them must be strictly construed. Wilshire Insurance Co. v. State, 94 Nev. 546, 582 P.2d 372 (1978). While *Wilshire*did not concern the technical requirements of an affidavit of mailing, the reasoning is valid. We hold that district courts must adhere to the provisions of NRS 178.508; an affidavit of mailing shall accompany the notice of intent to forfeit a bond, as the language of the statute requires.

In this case, appellants were not prejudiced. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court.

1

NRS 178.508 provides:

> If the defendant fails to appear when his presence in court is lawfully required and not excused, the court shall direct the fact of such failure to appear to be entered upon its minutes. If the undertaking exceeds $50 or money deposited instead of bail bond exceeds $500, the court shall direct that the sureties and the local agent of each surety, or the depositor if he is not the defendant, be given notice that the defendant has failed to appear, *by certified mail within 15 days after the failure to appear, and shall execute an affidavit of mailing to be kept as an official public record of the court.*The undertaking or money instead of bail bond is forfeited upon the expiration of 90 days after the notice is mailed, except as otherwise provided in NRS 178.509. A copy of the notice must be transmitted to the district attorney at the time notice is given to the sureties or the depositor. (Emphasis added.)
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5446 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

600 Florida Avenue in Cocoa, Florida, as the ‘‘Harry T. and Harriette 

Moore Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 27, 2010 

Mr. POSEY (for himself, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. YOUNG of Florida, Ms. 

CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. PUTNAM, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, 

Mr. STEARNS, Mr. BOYD, Mr. MICA, Mr. MEEK of Florida, Mr. MILLER

of Florida, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. KLEIN of Florida, Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Ms. KOSMAS, Ms. ROSLEHTINEN, Mr. DEUTCH, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Mr. ROONEY, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. BUCHANAN, and Mr. MACK) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 600 Florida Avenue in Cocoa, Florida, as 

the ‘‘Harry T. and Harriette Moore Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HARRY T. AND HARRIETTE MOORE POST OF4 FICE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 600 Florida Avenue in Cocoa, 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5446 IH

1 Florida, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Harry T. 

2 and Harriette Moore Post Office’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Harry T. and Har7 riette Moore Post Office’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. TALMADGE H. INNMAN

No. 7125SC176

(Filed 28 April 1971)

Burglary and Unlawful Breakings § 5; Larceny § 7 — sufficiency of evidence

In a prosecution charging defendant with housebreaking and felonious larceny, the State’s evidence was sufficient to withstand defendant’s motion for a directed verdict of not guilty.

Appeal by defendant from *McLean, J.,*19 October 1970 Session, Caldwell Superior Court.

By indictment proper in form, defendant was charged with house breaking and felonious larceny. He pleaded not guilty but was found guilty as charged. Defendant testified in his own behalf and on cross-examination admitted that he had theretofore been convicted of numerous felonies for which he had served prison terms. These offenses included store breaking, larceny of automobiles, armed robbery, violation of the National Fire Arms Act, and two or three convictions for escape. From judgment imposing two consecutive prison sentences of from nine to ten years, defendant appealed.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan by Staff Attorney L. Philip Covington for the State.*

*L. H. Wall for defendant appellant.*

BRITT, Judge.

Defendant assigns as error the failure of the trial court to grant his timely made motion for a directed verdict of not guilty. The evidence presented at trial, considered in the light most favorable to the state, tended to show:

While the owners were away, the rural home of Joe and Lewis Wilker was broken into and entered and considerable personal property, including a television set and a radio, was stolen. Due to heavy rains prior to the burglary, police found clear mud-grip tire tracks, as well as men’s shoe tracks, around the house; they also found a heel from a man’s shoe. The day following the burglary, defendant was seen driving a truck belonging to his brother, and the truck was equipped with mud-grip tires which made tracks similar to those found at the *203Wilker home. At defendant’s residence, police found a pair of shoes1 with a heel missing; the shoes made tracks similar to those found at the Wilker home. All of the stolen property except the television set was found at the home of defendant’s brother, and the brother stated that defendant had brought it there. The television set was found at the home of a third party who testified that he received it from defendant in trade for a radio. The Wilkers did not give defendant permission to enter their home. After having been advised of his rights, defendant admitted to police officers that he “stole the stuff from the Wilker house.”

Suffice to say, the evidence was more than sufficient to survive defendant’s motion for a directed verdict and the assignment of error relating thereto is overruled.

Defendant’s remaining assignments of error relate to the admission of certain testimony and the court’s charge to the jury. We have carefully considered each of these assignments, but finding them without merit, they are overruled.

The defendant received a fair trial, free from prejudicial error, and the judgment imposed was within the limits prescribed by statute.

No error.

Judges Campbell and Graham concur.
#### JOHN TOLOTTI and MARY ELLEN TOLOTTI, Appellants and Cross-Respondents, v. FRED L. EIKELBERGER and MARGARET A. EIKELBERGER, Respondents and Cross-Appellants.

No. 7114

December 30, 1974

530 P.2d 106

[Rehearing denied January 22, 1975]

*467*Stewart & Horton, Ltd.,*of Reno, for Appellants and Cross-Respondents Tolotti.

*Lohse & Lohse, Chartered,*of Reno, for Respondents and Cross-Appellants Eikelberger.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

From the documentation available, it appears that having leased certain land they ultimately developed as the Y-Rancho Trailer Park from the Tolottis and the Manzos, the Eikelber-gers thereafter subleased the park, other than its laundry room, back to the Tolottis. Disputes arose, and the Eikelbergers, as sublessors, sued the Tolottis, as sublessees, for rentals coming due after October 1, 1966. (A previous accounting, concerned in this court’s Case No. 6558, also decided this date, adjudicated rights of the parties prior to October 1, 1966.)

The new action was consolidated for trial with another, filed by the Tolottis, claiming reimbursement for expenses allegedly paid by the Tolottis but attributable to operation of the laundry room. The consolidated actions were tried to a jury, which determined that the Tolottis owed the Eikelbergers $30,899.81. On the ensuing appeal and cross-appeal the most significant issues are:

(1) Appellants’ contention that because the court-appointed master in Case No. 6558 utilized an accrual method of accounting, the court erred in the instant case when it refused to instruct the jury to “use the accrual system of accounting in making [their] decision in this case.”

(2) Respondents’ contention that they are entitled to prejudgment interest.

Concerning the first issue, the record shows appellants’ counsel well knew respondents’ demand was predicated on the contention that the parties’ sublease agreement contemplated *468a cash basis accounting system to determine rents due respondents thereunder. While appellants now contend “res judicata” or “estoppel” barred respondents from urging their view of the parties’ sublease agreement, appellants’ answer pleaded no such defense, and accordingly, whatever its merits might otherwise have been, the district court could properly consider such defense waived. NRCP 8(c).

Concerning the second issue, the rent from the Tolottis to the Eikelbergers should have been computed and paid monthly, and therefore each item of rent properly bears interest from the date it was due. NRS 99.040(1); Southdown, Inc. v. McGinnis, 89 Nev. 184, 510 P.2d 636 (1973); cf. Hardison v. Carmany, 88 Nev. 670, 504 P.2d 1 (1972).

Other assignments of error have been considered and found to be without merit.

This matter is remanded for the limited purpose of entering a judgment that includes pre-judgment interest, as indicated above.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Cubic Energy, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2010 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,as C.F.O., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

Date: October 12, 2010

 
| Signature: | /s/  Larry G. Badgley    |   |
|------------|--------------------------|--------|
|       | Larry G. Badgley, C.F.O. |   |

 

----