alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32(a), Form 10-QKansas City Life Insurance Company

**KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY            SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**First Quarter2009

The undersigned certify that the registrant’s Form 10-K 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(a) or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of            the registrant. 

/s/ R. Philip Bixby

R. Philip Bixby             President, Chief Executive Officer,             and Chairman of the Board                                                         

/s/ Tracy W. Knapp

Tracy W. Knapp             Senior Vice President, Finance 

Date: May 1, 2009
<PAGE>
                                                                EXHIBIT 23.2


                      [MCGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP LETTERHEAD]




                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the January 12, 1996 
Registration Statement on Form S-8 of our report, dated February 7, 1997, on 
the financial statements of Richey Electronics, Inc. as of December 31, 1995 
and 1996 and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 
1996, which appears on page 22 of Form 10-K of Richey Electronics, Inc. for 
the year ended December 31, 1996.

                                    MCGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP

Pasadena, California
March 18, 1997
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

WRITTEN STATEMENT

OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERAND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

 

The undersigned hereby certify that, to the best ofthe knowledge of the undersigned, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for thefiscal year ended June 30, 2004 filed by Implant Sciences Corporation with theSecurities and Exchange Commission fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that theinformation contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

 

 
| Date: November 10, 2004 | By:                                             | /s/ Anthony J. Armini |   |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
|                    |    Anthony  J. Armini, President |
|                    |    and  Chief Executive Officer  |
|                    |
| Date: November 10, 2004 | By:                                             | /s/ Diane J. Ryan     |   |
|                    | Diane J. Ryan,  VP Finance                      |
|                    | and Chief  Financial Officer                    |
|                         |                                                 |                       |        |  |  |

 

----
Document

Exhibit 10.16


Cris Calsada Yearly Discretionary Base Salary Increase


The Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Regulus Therapeutics Inc., upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee of the Board, approved the increase of Ms. Calsada’s annual base salary to $340,725, effective January 1, 2022.
#### STATE v. BRADY

No. 95 PC.

Case below: 18 N.C. App. 325.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 12 July 1973.
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: November 13, 2003
___/s/ William I. Miller______ 
William I. Miller 
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Abatement Order filed June 23, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00331-CR

____________

BENJAMIN EUGENE ALLEN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 8

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2000793

ABATEMENT ORDER

The reporter’s record has not been filed in this appeal. The court reporter has 

informed the court that appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the 

reporter’s fee to prepare the reporter’s record. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c)(2)(A). 

This court is unaware whether appellant is entitled to proceed without the payment 

of costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c)(2)(B). Accordingly, we enter the following 

order. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c).
We ORDER the judge of the County Criminal Court at Law No. 8 to 

immediately conduct a hearing at which appellant, appellant’s counsel, if any, and 

counsel for the State shall participate, either in person or by video teleconference, 

to determine whether appellant desires to prosecute his appeal, and, if so, whether 

appellant is indigent and, thus entitled to a free record and appointed counsel on 

appeal. The judge may appoint appellate counsel for appellant if necessary. The 

judge shall see that a record of the hearing is made, shall make findings of fact and 

conclusions of law, and shall order the trial clerk to forward a record of the hearing 

and a supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings and conclusions. The 

transcribed record of the hearing, the court’s findings and conclusions, and a 

videotape or compact disc, if any, containing a recording of the video 

teleconference shall be filed with the clerk of this court within thirty days of the 

date of this order.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the 

trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this court. The court will 

also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or 

the court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. It is the responsibility of any 

party seeking reinstatement to request a hearing date from the trial court and to 

schedule a hearing in compliance with this court’s order. If the parties do not 

request a hearing, the court coordinator of the trial court shall set a hearing date 

and notify the parties of such date.

PER CURIAM
#### MONROE C. CLARK v. OTIS SHERRILL and SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

(Filed 10 April 1963.)

Railroads § 5—

Evidence tending to show that plaintiff was injured when defendant’s train collided with plaintiff’s truck on a clear day at a grade crossing where the track was straight for 700 feet in the direction from which the train approached, *is held*to show contributory negligence as a matter of law on the part of plaintiff, notwithstanding evidence that plaintiff’s view of the track was obstructed by weeds, there being no evidence from which it might have been inferred that the obstruction along the track was sufficient to. hide materially the view of an approaching train.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Gambill, J.,*November 19, 1962 Term, Foesyth Superior Court.

Civil action to recover for injuries plaintiff received in a grade crossing collision between his pickup truck, as he drove west on Fork Church Road, and the corporate defendant’s south-bound train near the village of Bixby in Davie County. The collision occurred a few minutes after nine o’clock on the morning of February 2, 1959. The weather was clear. The sun was shining. The hard surface of the Fork Church Road at the crossing was 23 feet wide, smooth and level with the rails.

The cause .of action was based on negligence in maintaining the right of way and in failure to give notice of the train’s approach. The defendant denied negligence and conditionally pleaded contributory negligence as a defense.

At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence the court entered judgment of involuntary nonsuit, from which the plaintiff appealed.

*White & Crumpler, by James G. White, Leslie G. Frye, Harrell Powell, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.*

*W. T. Joyner and Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, by W. P. Sandridge, C. F. Vance, Jr., for defendants appellees.*

Per Curiam.

The evidence disclosed the track in the direction from which the train approached was straight for a distance of 700 feet to 1,500 feet, according to which of the plaintiff’s witnesses made the estimate. The plaintiff testified the track was concealed by a bank and weeds to within 75 feet of the crossing. However, the evidence disclosed the obstruction above the road and above the rails varied from about two feet near the crossing to four feet near the curve. While the plaintiff’s evidence is to the effect that the tracks were obstructed, *255there is no evidence from which it may be inferred the obstruction along the tracks interfered with a view of an approaching freight train. According to all the evidence, the plaintiff’s failure to see the approaching train in the bright sunlight was his own fault. Contributory negligence appears as matter of law. The judgment of nonsuit is

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6730
JOSEPH LOUIS MCCOY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHELLE MITCHELL, Sheriff; LIEUTENANT WILKINS, Medical Supervisor; DEPUTY FORD, Nurse; DEPUTY SMITH, Nurse; DOCTOR CHANG, MD; DEPUTY ANDERSON, Nurse, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (1:06-cv-00126-TSE) Submitted: August 18, 2006 Decided: August 29, 2006 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Louis McCoy, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Joseph Louis McCoy appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action, alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs, for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeMcCoy v. Mitchell , No. 1:06-cv-00126-TSE (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 3, 2006 & entered Apr. 4, 2006). We d ispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# Airman Accounted For From World War II (Duchene, D.)

/ Published Aug. 30, 2022
WASHINGTON,
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the quarterly report of Furniture Brands International, Inc.(the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Denise L. Ramos, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 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.
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/ Denise L. Ramos                 
| | ------------------------------------
| | Denise L. Ramos                     
| | Title: Chief Financial Officer      
| | Furniture Brands International, Inc.
| | May 10, 2005
No. 76-133.

#### Fruehauf Corp. *v.*Truck Equipment Service Co.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF INCOME FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN FORM 10-Q
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           7,394
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,471
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,772
<INVENTORY>                                      2,106
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,605
<PP&E>                                          56,998
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,952
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  96,139
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,425
<BONDS>                                         45,565
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            71
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,078
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    96,139
<SALES>                                        108,406
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               137,820
<CGS>                                           96,355
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  123,443
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,658
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   906
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,754
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (281)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (113)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (168)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (168)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
#### JERNIGAN v. STATE

No. 43 PC.

Case below: 10 N.C. App. 562.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 12 May 1971.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT W EN HUEI C HENG, a .k.a . En Hui Zhe n g, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorney Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 11-73826 Age n c y No. A095-687-729 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 21, 2014 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, SILVER M AN, a nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. W e n Hue i C he ng, a

native and c itiz e n of C hina , pe titions for revie wof the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing he r m otion to re ope n re m ova l proc e e d ings ba se d on ine ffe c tive a ssista n c e of c ounse l. W e have 

# FIL ED JAN 23 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 1 - 7 3 8 2 6jurisdic tion under 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for a buse of disc re tion thede nia l of a m otion to re ope n. A v agy an v . Holde r , 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th C ir. 2011). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w . The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing C he ng’ s m o tion to re ope n a lle ging ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l whe re she fa ile d to c o m ply with the thre shold re quire m e nts of Matte r of Lozada , 19 I. & N. De c . 637 (B IA 1988), a nd the a lle ge d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e wa s not plain on the fa c e of the a dm inistra tive re c o rd. Se e Re

y e s v . Ashc roft, 358 F.3d 592, 596-99 (9th C ir. 2004). In light of this disposition, we do not re a c h C he ng’ s re m a i ning c onte ntions. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 1 - 7 3 8 2 6 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1364

RONALD SATISH EMRIT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CONGRESSMAN JOE HECK,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:17-cv-00074-PWG)

Submitted: June 20, 2017 Decided: June 30, 2017

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Satish Emrit, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Satish Emrit appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil 

complaint for improper venue. On appeal, we limit our review to the issues raised in 

Emrit’s informal brief. Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014). We have 

reviewed the record in light of these arguments and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Emrit v. 

Heck, No. 8:17-cv-00074-PWG (D. Md. Jan. 26, 2017). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Gloria MARKS, Plaintiff, and Mamie D. HILL, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. City of Seattle, a Municipal corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-35197.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit;

Submitted March 23, 2005.*

Decided April 4, 2005.

Mamie D. Hill, Kirkland, WA, pro se.

Roger Hillman, Jennifer D. Bucher, Esq., Garvey Schubert & Barer, Medora A. Marisseau, Esq., Bullivant Houser Bailey, Bruce E.H. Johnson, Esq., Diana C. Tate, Davis Wright *&*Tremaine, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Mamie D. Hill appeals pro se the district court’s order denying her motion to reconsider the dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of a workplace dispute. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, *171*Fiester v. Turner, 783 F.2d 1474 (9th*Cir. 1986), and we affirm.

Western District of Washington Local Rule CR7(h) requires motions for reconsideration to be filed within ten judicial days of the order to which it relates. Hill’s motion was filed thirteen days after judgment was entered dismissing her section 1983 action. Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion for reconsideration as untimely. *See Guam Sasaki Corp. v. Diana’s Inc.,*881 F.2d 713, 715 (9th Cir.1989) (noting this court should accord broad deference to the district court’s interpretation of local rules).

Hill’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *171courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000052617
<NAME> IRIWN FINANCIAL CORPORTAION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          53,831
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          28,840
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                71,674
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      8,525
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          36,911
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            36,602
<LOANS>                                        824,769
<ALLOWANCE>                                      9,414
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,840,207
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,006,703
<SHORT-TERM>                                   496,514
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             94,072
<LONG-TERM>                                     29,573
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           48,089
<PREFERRED>                                      1,387
<COMMON>                                        29,965
<OTHER-SE>                                     133,904
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,840,207
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 20,116
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  992
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                14,662
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                35,770
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               8,460
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,491
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           20,279
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,136
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (1,245)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 53,936
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,345
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      15,345
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,482
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .40<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40<F1>
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     .05<F2>
<LOANS-NON>                                      4,674
<LOANS-PAST>                                       168
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 8,555
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    3,555
<RECOVERIES>                                        77
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                9,414
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             9,414
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          4,909
<FN>
<F1>Information not in 1,000 and earnings per share reported in basic and diluted.
<F2>Information not in 1,000
</FN>


</TABLE>