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

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

In connection with the Annual Report of AutoInfo, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harry Wachtel,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, 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 result of operations of the
Company.

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.


/s/ Harry Wachtel
-----------------

Harry Wachtel
Chief Executive Officer
March 25, 2004
#### CURRY v. STALEY

No. 72 PC.

Case below: 6 N.C. App. 165.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 18 November 1969.
#### WILLIAM P. COTTON, dba COTTON’S AIR CONDITIONING SERVICE, Appellant, v. KENNETH M. LUDLOW, Respondent.

No. 7798

September 29, 1975

540 P.2d 106

*591
      *John Manzonie,*of Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Samuel S. Anter,*of Las Vegas, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

In May 1970, the respondent terminated his employment as an air conditioning serviceman for the appellant. Respondent in the trial court sought recovery of certain money that he claimed was owed under their oral agreement whereby he would be paid according to work invoices submitted and collected by the appellant. The trial court determined that the funds were owing.

The primary thrust of appellant’s argument on appeal is that the judgment by the trial court was not supported by the evidence. A review of the record convinces us to the contrary. Unrefuted evidence of unpaid invoices outstanding at the time of respondent’s termination and evidence that appellant subsequently received payment on those invoices from customers, support the findings of the trial court. Fletcher v. Fletcher, 89 Nev. 540, 516 P.2d 103 (1973).

The issue of Ludlow’s status as an employee or an independent contractor has no bearing whatsoever on the question of liability.

Affirmed.
#### Western Straw Products Company, Appellant, *v.*Lake Erie Engineering Works, Respondent.

*Western Straw Products Co.*v. *Lake Erie Engineering Works,*172 ,.App. Div. 934, affirmed.

(Argued October 31, 1918;

decided November 26, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered January 19, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term. The complaint alleged that defendant contracted with plaintiff and one Kneeland to construct and furnish and .deliver for and to plaintiff, the owner, certain parts of a straw board machine for which plaintiff agreed to pay; that plaintiff fully performed said contract on its part; that after defendant had but partially performed, but had received payment *705from plaintiff for full performance, it wrongfully refused to further perform said contract to plaintiff’s damage; that at the time of such refusal plaintiff, in addition to being a party to said contract, was also the agent and the assignee of Kneeland, the third party; that after so refusing, defendant, having possession of the unfinished machine, refused to surrender such possession to plaintiff who was entitled thereto, to plaintiff’s damage. The answer sets forth specific and general denials and admissions, and sets up as a defense that plaintiff did not stand in such privity to the contract as to permit recovery in its own right, and further that breaches by Kneeland defeated plaintiff’s right to recover either in its own right or as Kneeland’s agent and assignee.

*Irving W. Cole*and *Sylvanus B. Nye*for appellant.

*Henry W. Killeen*and *Clarence MacGregor*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, . Cardozo, Pound and Andrews, JJ.
|        | /s/      Michael J. Chesser                                                                                                     |
|-------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |                                                                                                                            |
| Name:Title: | Michael      J. ChesserChairman      of the Board and ChiefExecutive      Officer                                               |
| Date:       | May      9, 2008                                                                                                                |
|        |                                                                                                                            |
|        | /s/      Terry Bassham                                                                                                          |
| Name:Title: | Terry      BasshamExecutive      Vice President – Finance and Strategic Development and Chief      Financial Officer |
| Date:       | May      9, 2008                                                                                                                |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000351116
<NAME> FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          19,977
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,256
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    141,158
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               237,995
<PP&E>                                       1,892,577
<DEPRECIATION>                                 927,790
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,251,423
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          168,557
<BONDS>                                        441,030
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     50,084
<COMMON>                                           340
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,878
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,251,423
<SALES>                                        957,456
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               957,456
<CGS>                                          701,324
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  701,324
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (9,432)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,155
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                172,533
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,164
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             45,090
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    45,090
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.55


</TABLE>
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Jaclyn, Inc. (the
Company) for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the
Report), the undersigned each hereby certifies 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 14, 2006 | /s/ Robert Chestnov Robert Chestnov, President (Chief Executive Officer)
|-------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Dated:   November 14, 2006 | /s/ Anthony Christon Anthony Christon, Chief Financial Officer
|-------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Jaclyn, Inc. and will be retained
by Jaclyn, Inc. and forwarded to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                           5
<LEGEND>
                                        
This schedule contains summary financial information
extracted from the unaudited condensed consolidated balance
sheet as of September 30, 1998 and the unaudited condensed
consolidated statement of earnings for the three months
ended September 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
           
<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                     JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                                        1,519,542
<SECURITIES>                                                    687,060
<RECEIVABLES>                                                22,593,701
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  1,261,770
<INVENTORY>                                                  35,756,451
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             61,955,934
<PP&E>                                                       10,548,263
<DEPRECIATION>                                                3,445,586
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               74,719,833
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        18,746,147
<BONDS>                                                      20,374,295
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                        406,572
<OTHER-SE>                                                   35,192,819
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 74,719,833
<SALES>                                                      33,256,456
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             33,256,456
<CGS>                                                        26,554,068
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                26,554,068
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              6,795,052
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              313,442
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                (406,106)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   (164,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            (242,106)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   (242,106)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                     (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     (0.06)
        

</TABLE>
#### FLOYD v. JARRELL

No. 59 PC.

Case below: 18 N.C. App. 418.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 31 August 1973.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MAHLARD K. BOYD

, Appellant,

v.

CHRISTOPHER A. NARDUCCI

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 2893

[ April 26, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Bernard I. Bober , Judge; L.T. Case No. 97

- 000907CF10A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No brief filed for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER

, C.J., D AMOORGIAN and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# L_2007037EN.01000801.xml

| 9.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 37/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 37/8

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 122/2007

of 8 February 2007

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 38/2007

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 of 17 January 2007 opening a standing invitation to tender for the resale for export of sugar held by the intervention agencies of Belgium, the Czech Republic, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 of 17 January 2007 opening a standing invitation to tender for the resale for export of sugar held by the intervention agencies of Belgium, the Czech Republic, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 7 February 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 7 February 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the partial invitation to tender ending on 7 February 2007, the maximum export refund for the product referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 shall be 340,00 EUR/tonne.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 9 February 2007.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 8 February 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1585/2006 (OJ L 294, 25.10.2006, p. 19).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 11, 18.1.2007, p. 4.

2

---
Exhibit 10.1.d

GUARANTY EXTENSION

This Guaranty Extension is made and entered into as of March 29, 2004, by and between Great Plains Energy Incorporated (the "Guarantor") and The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company (the "Creditor"), and, each a "Party" and collectively the "Parties".

Whereas, Guarantor issued a certain guaranty dated as of March 1, 2004 (the "Guaranty") in favor of Creditor relating to Agreements (as defined in the Guaranty) between Strategic Energy, L.L.C. ("Strategic") and the Creditor, and

WHEREAS, the Guaranty provides for a specific termination date of March 31, 2004; and

WHEREAS, Guarantor is willing to extend the specific termination date of the Guaranty to March 31, 2005;

THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual agreements herein contained, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged by Guarantor and Creditor, the Parties agree as follows

1.	Guarantee Extension. The second sentence of Section 9 of the Guarantee hereby is amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows:

This Guaranty shall terminate on the first to occur of (a) ten (10) days after Creditor receives written notice from Guarantor of such termination, (b) the full payment of all Obligations, and (c) March 31, 2005 (the "Termination Date").

2.	General. This Guaranty Extension shall be effective as of the date first above written. Except as specifically amended herein, the Guaranty shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms, and the Guaranty, as amended hereby, is hereby ratified and confirmed.

In witness whereof, the Parties have signed this Guaranty Extension as of the date first written above.



|Great Plains Energy Incorporated
/s/Andrea F. Bielsker
Andrea F. Bielsker
Senior Vice President - Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                                
|The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company
By: /s/David L. Wozny
Name: David L. Wozny
Title: V. P.
EXHIBIT 31.2

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, John W. Swatek, certify that: 

 

| 1. | I have reviewed annual report on Form 10-K of Hanover Direct, Inc.; |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

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(s) 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; and

 

c.     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting 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

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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 the 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 financial information; and

 

b.      Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

/s/ John W. Swatek

John W. Swatek

Senior Vice President,

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

 

Date: March 7, 2007
EXHIBIT 23.3


                   CONSENT of INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS


     We hereby  consent  to the use of our name under the  heading  "Oil and Gas
Operations"  of Item 1 in the Annual Report on Form 10-K (the Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 1997, of Seagull Energy Corporation and Subsidiaries and
the incorporation by reference of the Form 10-K into the Company's  registration
statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 2-72014,  2-80834,  33-14463,  33-43483,  33-50643,
33-50645, 33-64041 and 333-13393), Forms S-8 and S-3 (Nos. 2-93087 and 33-22475)
and Form S-3 (Nos. 33-53729, 33-65118, 33-64051 and 333-34841).





                                              \S\ DeGolyer and MacNaughton

                                               DeGOLYER AND MacNAUGHTON



Dallas, Texas
March 16, 1998
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-21-00349-CV

IN RE Greg ABBOTT, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, 

Relator

Original Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 15, 2021

DISMISSED AS MOOT

On August 20, 2021, Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which the only relief 

requested was to stay the trial court’s August 12, 2021 temporary restraining order (TRO). Relator 

separately sought emergency relief to stay the TRO pending resolution of the petition. 

On September 2, 2021, the TRO expired, and the trial court granted the real party in 

interest’s request for a temporary injunction. 

Because the only relief the petition sought was to stay the trial court’s TRO, which has 

expired, Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot. See TEX.R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

1

This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2021-CVK-001517-D1, styled City of Laredo v. Greg Abbott, in his official 

capacity as Governor of Texas, pending in the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas, the Honorable 

Honorable José A. López presiding.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DIEGO GONZALEZ-GARCIA, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-84

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed October 26, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota 

County; Thomas Krug, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender and 

J.L. Perez, Assistant Public Defender, 

Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Wendy Buffington, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KHOUZAM, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.