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

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

The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of North American
Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc. (the "Company") that the Quarterly Report of the
Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the
Company.


                               NORTH AMERICAN GALVANIZING & COATINGS, INC.
                               -------------------------------------------
                                              (Registrant)



August 13, 2004                                /s/ Ronald J. Evans
                                               ---------------------------
                                               President and
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               (Principal Executive Officer)
**Exhibit 32.01**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of WhitneyInformation Network, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31,2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Form 10-K/A”), I, Charles M. Peck, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Form 10-K/Afully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Charles M. Peck     |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Charles M. Peck         |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | January 15,  2009       |

 

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging,or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### WHEELER v. WHEELER

No. 76 PC.

No. 40 (Fall Term).

Case below: 40 N.C. App. 54.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 1 May 1979.
Case 1:06-cv-15081-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### Candace Cottone, Plaintiff, v County of Schenectady et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Schenectady County,

March 4,1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Grasso, Rodriguez, Putorti & Grasso (Michael E. Basile*of counsel), for plaintiff. *Thomas B. Hayner, County Attorney (Martin Cirincione*of counsel), for defendants.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Loren N. Brown, J.

By notice of motion, dated November 10, 1986, and supporting papers, the defendants move for an order dismissing all three causes of action in the plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that they are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The plaintiff, with a factual offering of proof, opposes only the motion to dismiss the third cause of action.

On May 23, 1986, the plaintiff was allegedly burned while at *806her place of employment. After the injury, she was allegedly forced to work while still injured, and after she did take time off for recovery, she was unlawfully discriminated against because of her injury and claim. In addition to the claim of discrimination, she alleges that the conduct of the defendant violated the terms of her employment contract.

The court believes that the allegations of intentional infliction of harm to the plaintiff as expressed in her affidavit, and of violations of her contract, two causes of action not necessarily barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law, can withstand the motion to dismiss cause of action number three. *(See, DeMarco v Federal Ins. Co.,*99 AD2d 114.)

*Brinkman v Buffalo Bills Football Club*(433 F Supp 699), relied upon by the defendants to support their argument that a contract cause of action to recover damages for injuries arising out of employment is barred by the exclusivity of the Workers’ Compensation Law, is factually distinguishable. In *Brinkman,*the contract cause of action was dismissed because the contract called for proper medical care in case of injury while playing football, precisely the type of damages addressed by workers’ compensation. The gravamen of the contract action at bar concerns the plaintiff’s employment relations vis-á-vis her employer, not with the injury suffered.

Accordingly, causes of action one and two are dismissed. The motion to dismiss cause of action three is denied.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that
the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 of
Abazias, Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Abazias,
      Inc.Dated:March 30,
      2009
            By:
            /s/ Oscar
      RodriguezOscar
      RodriguezChief
      Executive Officer





A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by
Section 906, has been provided to Abazias, Inc. and will be retained by
Abazias, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

-. 

OROVCR SELLERS 

Nrii#%~ 1946 

.-1 *Tro”“ri EmmAI. 

Hon. L. A. wooas 

stat* Suporlntondont oi Publla fnatruotion 

Austin, Texas 

~e6r or. w00a8: 

Tour reoent ooxuouniostioa to th 

"During the aummor or 

oi the 1944-45 aohool term 

of Coleman and R 

rirty per 0ent t 

on8 year only. 

o a droreaaa In 

aaoredlted high 

t befors the beginning 

to ralaa the tax rate 

d let the valuations 

19&-45 aotlon. I 

from your offioe eatablIshIng 

tha aaaeaaed valuations and 

Iot In relation to the ultimate 

alpa as it applies to Art1019 

ph 2 oi thr Rural Aid Law." 

70~ 00t8i6m08tion, we raqueated 0r YOW 

Inrormstlon. This haa been furnished by 

ounty Superintendent 0r Coleman County. 

I, your Mr. A. B. Martin reeds as follows: 

"In replying to your roqueat of Maroh 4 ror InrormatIon 

regarding the taluatlona of the Talpa Sohool Matrlot #O, 

rlrat I must say that the Telpa DIatrIot is an Iddependent 

District Instoed or a oonmon. 

"The Talpa Board of Trustees, after an eleotion was 

held and oerrled to raise the rata from $1.00 to $1.50, dismissed their assessor-oollsotor and authorized the oounty 
450 

Eon. L. A. Woods - Paga 2 

assessor-oollootor to assess and oollrot Umlr l ohool tax on 

the basis of oounty +aluatlona and at the #l.50 rat.. 

Vhr amount of tax ralaod by tha prior tax system on 

the prior valuations amountrd to #11,65~.1?k (lOO$ oollrotIona) 

Tha &mount ot tax to br rollroted this year et the $1.50 rate 

but with tha rrduoad valuations la #ll,953.65 (100% oollootlona) 

IOU oan ass that tha rhaagr has reSultad in a alight lnorraao 

in the refonue of this year otor that of last year. Tha aohool 

also saves the rxtra l xprnaa ot the l aaeaaIng and eollaotlng. 

“Should you need further Information, I shell be p*lad to 

furnish It.’ 

The Talpa Independent Sohool Dlatrlot wea originally oreated In 

1923 by a spoolal mot, known as E. 8. Mo.‘293, Chapter 13, p. 59, 

Speolal Laws, 38th Lagialatura, Regular Session. 

The aeoond aragra h oi Seotlon 2 of Art. I oi 5. B. lb7, 

Chapter 361, 49t.E Lag16 P eture , 1945, Regular Sosalon, oommonly known 

as the ourrent Rural Aid Law, prwldra as follows: 

11 *lo aohool dlatrlot will be l llglble fcis aid under tha 

. protIaIona of this Aat whloh has raduord Its tax rate wIthIn 

the two years lnnnedlatrly praredIng the year ior whIoh aid la 

appllad ror hrroundar or uhloh has rodmod Its tax valuation 

ln order to ahow budgatary meLa 

The County Superintendent*8 latter, above quoted, roreala that 

there vi11 be a slight lnoroaar in rWonuo this year OYar that of 

last year. ThIa Inoreaaa (baaed on lOO$ oolleotlona) will result 

from the raise in the tax rata on the roduoad raluatIon8. In view 

of these raota, It Is the opinion oi this department that tha tax 

valuation ot sold aohool dlatrlot was not raduord *In order to show 

budgetary ,nead.* Neither is Its l lIg~bllIty ior l qtiallzatlon aid 

aiiaotrd thereby. 

Very truly yours, 

LIIF:V
#### STATE v. LASSITER

No. 152 PC.

Case below: 17 N.C. App. 35.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 6 February 1973.
exv10w1






Exhibit 10.1



FIRST AMENDMENT TO

RETIREMENT AND CONSULTING AGREEMENT 




     WHEREAS, Thomas & Betts Corporation, a Tennessee corporation (the “Company”), and
Kenneth W. Fluke (“Executive”) have previously entered into a Retirement and Consulting Agreement
(the “Agreement”) dated June 8, 2009; and,



     WHEREAS, the Company and Executive wish to amend the Agreement to extend the Consulting Period
provided for in paragraph 3 of the Agreement;



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained and
intending to be legally bound hereby, the Company and Executive agree that:



     1. The first sentence of Paragraph 3 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:



          Executive shall provide services to the Company as a consultant during the period beginning
October 2, 2009 and ending May 31, 2010 (the “Consulting Period”).




          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Agreement.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	September 2, 2009 

Date

	 	/s/ KENNETH W. FLUKE
 

KENNETH W. FLUKE
	 	 
	 
	September 2, 2009  

Date	 	THOMAS & BETTS CORPORATION
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
#### THURMAN LEE MOORE v. PETE ALVIN MOODY, HOWARD FERGUSON and the FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a corporation

No. 71

(Filed 12 January 1982)

Appeal and Error § 20— denial of summary judgment — discretionary review by Supreme Court

Except in extraordinary circumstances, the Supreme Court will not consider, either by writ of certiorari or discretionary review, any denial of a motion for summary judgment prior to the entry of final judgment in the case.

On certiorari pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure to review an order of *Llewellyn, J.,*at the 20 October 1980 Civil Session of NORTHAMPTON Superior Court denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On 4 March 1981 we allowed defendant Ford Motor Company’s petition for certiorari. We also treated the papers filed by defendant Ford Motor Company as a motion to bypass the Court of Appeals and granted that *720motion. The Court of Appeals had denied an identical petition for certiorari by defendant Ford Motor Company on 21 January 1981.

*Young, Moore, Henderson & Alvis, by Walter E. Brock, Jr., and Barbara B. Coughlin, for defendant-appellant Ford Motor Company.*

*Rosbon D. B. Whedbee and Perry W. Martin for plaintiff-appellee.*

PER CURIAM.

The only question presented to this Court is whether the trial court erred in denying defendant Ford Motor Company’s motion for summary judgment which motion was based upon the provisions of G.S. 1-50(6). The trial court concluded that the six year statute of limitations set forth in G.S. 1-50(6) was inapplicable to instant case, or if applicable, the statute was unconstitutional as applied to the facts of this case.

After a thorough and careful examination of the record, the briefs, and the authorities cited therein, and after giving due consideration to the oral arguments presented on this question, we conclude that the petition for writ of certiorari was improvidently allowed. The order allowing certiorari is hereby vacated. The decision of the trial court denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment shall remain undisturbed and in full force and effect. Except in extraordinary circumstances, this Court will not consider, either by writ of certiorari or discretionary review, any denial of a motion for summary judgment prior to the entry of final judgment in a case wherein summary judgment was denied.

Certiorari improvidently granted.
**12.2** **Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
I, Fulvio Conti, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Enel S.p.A.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the companyand have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to thecompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the periodin which this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the annual report that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
 5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of thecompany’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the company’sinternal control over financial reporting.
June 30, 2004         /s/FULVIO CONTI  Name:  Fulvio Conti   Title:  Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 56062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4850]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, 
Scientific Advisory Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Notice is published in accordance with section 10(a)(2) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463). The topic of 
the meeting on October 16-18, 2007 is to review new start and 
continuing research and development projects requesting Strategic 
Environmental Research and Development Program funds in excess of $1M. 
This meeting is open to the public. Any interested person may attend, 
appear before, or file statements with the Scientific Advisory Board at 
the time and in the manner permitted by the Board.

DATES: October 16, 2007 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., October 17, 2007 from 
9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and October 18 from 9 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: SERDP Program Office Conference Center, 901 North Stuart 
Street, Suite 804, Arlington, VA 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sharee Malcolm, SERDP Program 
Office, 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 303, Arlington, VA or by 
telephone at (703) 696-2119.

    Dated: September 26, 2007.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 07-4850 Filed 10-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION

                                       OF

        CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                          COYOTE NETWORK SYSTEMS, INC.

         Pursuant to Section 103 of the General  Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware, the undersigned does hereby certify:

1.   Coyote Network Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), filed
     a Certificate of Amendment of Restated  Certificate of  Incorporation  with
     the  Secretary  of State of Delaware on May 29, 1998 (the  "Certificate  of
     Amendment").

2.   The resolution  recited therein in the Section titled "FIRST"  contained an
     error.  Specifically,  the intent of the  resolution was to amend the first
     paragraph  of  Article  IV in order to  increase  the  number  of shares of
     authorized  capital stock of the Company  while  retaining the remainder of
     Article IV. The resolution  recited in the Certificate of Amendment  failed
     to limit the  revision  to the  first  paragraph  of  Article  IV,  thereby
     unintentionally deleting the remainder of the article.

3.   The  Section  title  "FIRST"  of the  Certificate  of  Amendment  is hereby
     corrected to read as follows:

     FIRST:  That at a meeting  of the  Board of  Directors  of  Coyote  Network
Systems,  Inc.  resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment
of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation, declaring said
amendment  to be  advisable  and calling a meeting of the  stockholders  of said
corporation for consideration thereof. The resolution setting forth the proposed
amendment is as follows:

     RESOLVED,   that  the  Restated   Certificate  of   Incorporation  of  this
     corporation be amended by changing the first paragraph of Article IV of the
     Restated  Certificate of Incorporation so that, as amended,  said paragraph
     shall be and read as follows:

     "The total number of shares of all classes which the corporation shall have
     authority to issue is 35,000,000, of which 5,000,000 shares shall be shares
     of Preferred Stock,  $.01 par value per share, and 30,000,000  shares shall
     be shares of Common Stock, $1.00 par value per share."


<PAGE>


IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,   said  Coyote  Network  Systems,  Inc.  has  caused  this
Certificate  of  Correction to be signed by Timothy G.  Atkinson,  an Authorized
Officer, this 27th day of July, 2000.

                                           /s/ Timothy G. Atkinson
                                           -------------------------------
                                           Timothy G. Atkinson, Secretary
#### Julia C. Bush, Respondent, *v.*Frank L. Crossett, Appellant, Impleaded with Others. Same, Respondent, *v.*Same, Appellant.

*Bush*v. *Crossett,*173 App. Div. 921, affirmed.

(Argued November 14, 1918;

decided December 3, 1918.)

Appeal in each of the above-entitled actions from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered March 29, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of' the court on trial at Special Term in an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property. The defendant Crossett interposed three defenses, the principal one being usury, another being that the actions were prematurely brought and another that the defendant had not received on said mortgages the full amount agreed to be advanced, thereon.

*Thomas B. Merchant*for appellant.

*Leon C. Rhodes*for respondent.

Judgment in' each case affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, McLaughlin and Crane, JJ.