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

 
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,as adopted pursuant toSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Irwin Financial Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the "Report"), I, William I. Miller, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:  August 12, 2003
________/s/ William I. Miller       ______ 
William I. Miller 
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE v. MUNDAY

No. 47 PC.

Case below: 5 N.C. App. 649.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 23 September 1969.
#### STATE v. ALEXANDER

No. 120 PC.

Case below: 18 N.C. App. 460.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 12 July 1973.
# C_2008003EN.01000501.xml

| 8.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 3/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 3/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4853 — PPG/SigmaKalon)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 3/02)

On 10 December 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4853. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4853. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
DISMISSED; Opinion Filed June 5, 2019.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00282

- CV

JOHNNY JOHNSON , Appellant

V. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSUR ANCE COMPANY AND BRANDY GILBREATH , Appellees

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366

- 03749

- 2017



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Carlyle
This is an appeal from the tr ial court’s order granting Liberty Mutual Insurance Company’s
motion for summary judgment on Johnny Johnson’s “contractual and extra

- contractual claims.”
The order granting the motion recites in its entirety as follows:

Came on to be heard Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s contractual and extra

- contractual claims and causes of action and the Court having considered the Motion, Response and Pleadings and hear d the parties’ argument is of the opinion that the Motion should be GRANTED.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s contractual and extra

- contractual claims and causes of action is GRANTED.

Because the record reflected Johnson had sued Liberty Mutual adjuster Brandy Gilbreath

as we ll and the order did not dispose of th at portion of the suit or “clearly and unequivocally” state
it finally disposed of all claims and parties
, we questioned whether we had jurisdiction over the– 2

–

appeal

. See Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 , 2 05 (Tex. 2001) (subject to mostly
statutory exceptions, appeal may be taken only from judgment that dispos es of all parties and

claims or “clearly and unequivocally stat es ” it finally disposes of all claims and parties )

. At our

request, Johnson filed a le tter brief addressing our concern , but nothing in his letter demonstrates
our jurisdiction

. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See id. at 195; see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P.
42.3(a).

190282F.P05 /Cory L. Carlyle/ CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE– 3

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JOHNNY JOHNSON, Appellant

No. 05

- 19

- 00282

- CV V.

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND BRANDY GILBREATH, Appellees On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366

- 03749

- 2017. Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle, Justices Myers and Molberg participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

We ORDER that appellees Liberty Mutual Insurance C ompany and Brandy Gilbreath recover their costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Johnny Johnson.

Judgment entered this 5 th day of June, 2019.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT KASIM McDONALD, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-4946 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed May 2, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Kimberly K. Fernandez, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See State v. Matthews, 891 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2004); Golden v. State, 870 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Cooper v. State, 902 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Kenon v. State, 780 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
#### IZZE GOLDSTEIN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. PAUL KOERNER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Submitted January term, 1932

Decided March 28, 1932.

Before Justices Campbell, Lloyd and Bodine.

For the appellant, *Frank J. Davis.*

For the appellee, *Aaron Heller.*

*465Per Curiam.

This was an action to recover for the performance of certain tile work; the state of demand being in two counts, the first alleging a right of recovery under an express contract fixing the price at $300 and the second seeking recovery for the reasonable price and value of the work which was alleged to be $300.

The defendant below filed specifications of defense admitting the making of the express contract for $300; asserting that the work was not done in accordance with the plans and specifications but that it was performed in an unworkmanlike manner and was valueless and that the entire work would have to be torn out and replaced. The defendant also filed a counter-claim setting up substantially the same facts as contained in his specifications of defenses but adding thereto that the tearing out and replacing of the work would cost $350 which amount he, the defendant, claims from the plaintiff.

The cause was tried without a jury and resulted in a finding in favor of the plaintiff for $225. Prom the resulting judgment the defendant appeals.

His entire argument is that there was no proof before the court below upon which the judgment can rest.

Counsel concedes that the rule of substantial performance is applicable but insists that there is no proof that the work was so performed.

But from the state of case agreed upon we conclude that there was proof warranting the trial court in so concluding. That being the situation the judgment below is affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                         Independent Auditors' Consent


The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Hanover Direct, Inc.:


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 2-92383, 2-94286, 33-52059, 33-52061, 33-52353, 33-52687, 33-58756,
33-58758, 33-58760, 33-66394, 333-3871, 333-02743, 333-03871, 333-13817,
333-25141, 333-51433, 333-80007, 333-91687, 333-91689, 333-88148, 333-88156 and
333-101564) on Form S-8 of Hanover Direct, Inc. of our report dated March 25,
2003 except as to note 6, which is as of April 2, 2004, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of Hanover Direct, Inc. as of December 27, 2003 and
December 28, 2002 and the related consolidated statements of income (loss),
shareholders' deficiency, and cash flows for the years ended, and the related
2002 and 2003 consolidated financial statement schedule, which report appears in
the December 27, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of Hanover Direct, Inc.

     Our report dated March 25, 2003 contains an explanatory paragraph relating
to the fact that the 2001 consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedule of Hanover Direct, Inc. were audited by other auditors who
have ceased operations. Our report also refers to the adoption in 2002 of the
provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, "Goodwill and
Other Intangible Assets".

     Our report also indicates that the Company's consolidated balance sheet as
of December 28, 2002 has been restated to classify certain debt as current.

KPMG LLP


New York, New York
April __, 2004
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: May 7, 2010
    /s/ Edward K. Aldag, Jr.Edward K. Aldag, Jr.Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ R. Steven HamnerR. Steven HamnerExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, 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.

March 31, 2015

d0323 

# Order

Clerk March 31, 2015

149230 & (77)(80)(88)

JAMES R. HOLTON and NANCY M.

HOLTON,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants/Cross

- Appellees,

v SC: 149230

COA: 308454

Oakland CC: 2011

- 121522

- CH

CAROLE L. WARD,

Defendant

- Appellee/Cross

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to file a response brief is GRANTED. The

applic ation for leave to appeal the January 23, 2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals

and the application for leave to appeal as cross

- appellant are considered, and they are

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed

by this Court. The motion for sanctions is DENIED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

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

                                November 12, 2004

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q by Kaiser Aluminum &
Chemical Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), for the period
ending September 30, 2004 (the "Report"), as filed on the date hereof with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the undersigned, Jack A. Hockema, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to such officer's knowledge:

      (1)   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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
            Report.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of
the date first above written.

                                           /s/ Jack A. Hockema
                                           ------------------------
                                           Jack A. Hockema
                                           Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation and will be retained by
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       76
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

May 28, 2013

d0520 

# Order

Clerk May 28, 2013

146707

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146707

COA: 313614

Bay CC: 11

- 011008

- FC

JESSICA CRYSTAL HERZIG,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 10, 2013

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 NAVISTAR FINANCIAL CORPORATION
AND SUBSIDIARIES CERTIFICATIONS I, Andrew J. Cederoth, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Navistar
Financial Corporation, subsidiary of International Truck and Engine
Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:  a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and E-19




---



##### 



Exhibit 31.2 NAVISTAR FINANCIAL CORPORATION
AND SUBSIDIARIES CERTIFICATIONS  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses
in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal controls over financial reporting. Date March 8, 2004 /s/Andrew J. CederothAndrew J. Cederoth
(Principal Financial Officer)
 E-20
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 14, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, August 14, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19D0001. DWIGHT DAVID MASSEY v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: CR071423
**AMENDMENT      NO. 1 TO CONSENT TO SUPPLEMENTAL LOAN**

**UNDER      LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT**

**1.**
**Defined      Terms**

----

**2.**
**Amendments      to Consent**

**Consent      to Supplemental Loan**

**Repayment      of Supplemental Loan**

**3.**
**Representations,      Warranties and Covenants**

**.  **

**4.**
**Conditions      Precedent**

----

**.  **

**5.**
**No      Other Changes**

**.**

**6.**
**Successors      and Assigns**

**.**

**7.**
**Counterparts**

**.      **

**8.**
**Required      Lender Authorization**

**[SIGNATURE      PAGE FOLLOWS]**

----

**THE      CIT GROUP/BUSINESS CREDIT, INC.**

|   | Read                and Agreed to: |
|--------|------------------------------------|

|   | **JACO                ELECTRONICS, INC.** |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|

|   | **INTERFACE                ELECTRONICS CORP.** |
|--------|------------------------------------------------|

|   | **BANK                OF AMERICA, N.A.,** as a                Lender |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
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.
 Federal Communications Commission
 The Federal Communications Commission will consider one additional item on the subject listed below at the Open Meeting on Thursday, November 3, 2005, which is scheduled to commence at 9:30 a.m. in Room TW-C305, at 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. Item No.
Bureau
Subject4
Enforcement
Title: Review of the Emergency Alert System (EB Docket No. 04-296).Summary: The Commission will consider a First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the Emergency Alert System rules.
 The prompt and orderly conduct of Commission business permits less than 7-days notice be given for consideration of this item. Action by the Commission, November 1, 2005. Chairman Martin; Commissioners Abernathy, Copps, and Adelstein voting to consider this item. Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from Audrey Spivack or David Fiske, Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.


[FR Doc. 05-22235 Filed 11-3-05; 12:35 pm] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

V.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CHURCH STREET 

POST OFFICE, New York, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-1167

Issued: October 31, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On September 13, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 15, 2023 merit 

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

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 23-1167.

In a letter dated and received October 17, 2023, appellant requested that the appeal be 

withdrawn.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that appellant’s request for the 

withdrawal of the appeal should be granted.1 Accordingly, 

1 The Board’s decisions and orders are final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance. 20 

C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the withdrawal of the appeal 

is granted. The appeal docketed as No. 23-1167 is dismissed.

Issued: October 31, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 23.2




                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-76399) pertaining to the Accredo Health, Inc. and its Subsidiaries
Stock Option and Restricted Stock Purchase Plan, as amended and restated; the
Accredo Health, Incorporated 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan; the Accredo
Health, Incorporated 1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan and the Accredo Health,
Incorporated 2002 Long-Term Incentive Plan, of our report dated August 16, 2002,
with respect to the 2002 and 2001 consolidated financial statements and schedule
of Accredo Health, Incorporated included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended June 30, 2003.

                                                         /s/Ernst & Young LLP

Memphis, Tennessee
September 29, 2003