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

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, the undersigned officer of Vision Bancshares, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,
2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|      |  |                |  |     |  |                        
|----- |  | -------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Dated |  | March 27, 2006 |  |     |  |                        
|      |  |                |  | By: |  | /s/ J. Daniel Sizemore 
|      |  |                |  |     |  | J. Daniel Sizemore,    
|      |  |                |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
Construction

Toolbox Talk Prevent Falls through Holes

Holes are made in roofs and floors as buildings go up 

and are torn down. Workers can be injured or killed if 

they fall through the holes.

John and Ken’s Story 

John was in the process of removing a damaged 

plywood sheet when Ken, his foreman, asked him to 

get some supplies. Before John left to get them, he 

laid the damaged plywood on the floor, and it 

happened to cover a hole. Later, Ken came along 

and picked up the plywood sheet to take it to a 

disposal chute. Not seeing the hole, he stepped into 

it and fell to the concrete floor below. He suffered 

severe injuries to his legs and back.

# What caused this incident? 

# How could this have been prevented?

# Have you ever fallen through a roof or floor hole, 

or do you know someone who has? If so, what 

happened?

Remember This

• Guard or cover all holes you create, uncover, or notice 

before you leave any work area. This will protect other 

workers, who might not notice the hole.

• Label all covers with the word “HOLE” or “COVER” to 

warn of the hazard.

• Keep an eye out for your co-workers. If a hole is 

uncovered, take action to cover it, even if you did not 

create or uncover it!

• Use at least 3/4” plywood, oriented strand board, or 

other materials to cover the hole, and secure with nails 

or screws so it cannot move. If a worker steps on an 

unsecured cover, it can shift and the worker can fall 

through the hole and be injured.

• Make sure covers can support at least two times the 

weight of workers, equipment, and materials. If a hole 

is larger than plywood, then use guardrails. (OSHA 

requires that covers be of standard strength and 

construction.) 

How can we stay safe today?

What will we do at the worksite to prevent falls through holes?

OSHA Standards: 1926.501 and 1926.502
Construction

Toolbox Talk Prevent Falls through Holes

; Guard or cover all holes you have created, uncovered, or noticed before you leave the work area.

; Label all covers with the word “HOLE” or “COVER” to warn of the hazard.

; Keep an eye out for your co-workers. If a hole is uncovered, take action to cover and secure it, even if you did not 

create or uncover it!

GET 

INFORMATION 

CDC/NIOSH INFO: 1-800-CDC-INFO (1-800-232-4636) | TTY: 1-800-232-6348 | cdc.gov/info | cdc.gov/niosh

CPWR: Contact 301-578-8500 | cpwr-r2p@cpwr.com | cpwr.com/toolbox-talks

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2022-145 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.26616/NIOSHPUB2022145 | August 2022
# EXHIBIT 32.1

I, William R. Dutmers,
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Knape & Vogt Manufacturing
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended April 1, 2006 which
               this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, and
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) |  | the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three
               months ended April 1, 2006 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
               financial condition and results of operations of Knape & Vogt Manufacturing
               Company.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated:  April 20, 2006

| | /s/ William R. Dutmers
William R. Dutmers
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### STATE v. JOHNSON and DANIELS and SANTOS

No. 36 PC.

Case below: 28 N.C. App. 166.

Petition by defendant Daniels for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 March 1976.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2078 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat Alaska Permanent 

Fund dividends as earned income for purposes of the kiddie tax. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 10, 2019 

Ms. MURKOWSKI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat Alaska 

Permanent Fund dividends as earned income for purposes of the kiddie tax. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN SCHOLARSHIPS TREATED AS EARNED 

4 INCOME FOR KIDDIE TAX. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1(g)(4) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

7 the following new subparagraph: 

8 ‘‘(D) TREATMENT OF ALASKA PERMANENT

9 FUND DIVIDENDS.—For purposes of this sub10 section, any Alaska Permanent Fund dividend 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2078 IS

1 which is received by the child referred to in 

2 paragraph (1) and included in the gross income 

3 of such child shall be treated as earned income 

4 of such child.’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

6 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

7 December 31, 2017. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Case 1:07-cv-03398-BSJ Document 12 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-27 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### BROWN v. SMITH

No. 95 PC.

Case below: 28 N.C. App. 224.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 8 November 1974.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

I, Patricia S. Morris, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of SourceForge, Inc. on Form
10-K/A for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2007 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of SourceForge, Inc.

|Date: October 17,
      2007 | By:    | /s/ PATRICIA S. MORRIS                                 
|---------------------------- | ------ | -------------------------------------------------------
|                             | Name:  | Patricia S.
      Morris                               
|                             | Title: | Chief
      Financial Officer and Senior Vice President

---
#### STATE v. SCOTT & SELLERS

No. 173 PC.

Case below: 55 N.C. App. 268.

Petition by defendant Sellers for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 March 1982.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS (LOSS) AND BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,080
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,928
<ALLOWANCES>                                       376
<INVENTORY>                                     13,540
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,903
<PP&E>                                         100,794
<DEPRECIATION>                                  62,242
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  86,011
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           65,427
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      9,748
<COMMON>                                         2,113
<OTHER-SE>                                      (9,689)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    86,011
<SALES>                                         28,732
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,732
<CGS>                                           21,957
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,957
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,743
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,162
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,130)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUI NG>                            (1,130)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,130)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.34)
        

</TABLE>
exv10w4






EXHIBIT 10.4




AMENDMENT 2008-2

TO THE

NORDSTROM EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

(2007 Restatement)



The Nordstrom Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (2007 Restatement) is hereby amended to reflect
application of the compensation recovery policy (commonly known as the clawback policy) contained
in the Nordstrom Corporate Governance Guidelines.





	1.	 	A new Section 5.5 Application of Clawback Policy is added, as follows:
	 
	 	 	“Application of Clawback Policy. This section applies if the Board elects to apply
the compensation recovery policy contained in the Nordstrom Corporate Governance Guidelines
(the “Clawback Policy”) to a Participant. To the extent that any amount in a Participant’s
Account is attributable to contributions based on compensation that is subject to recovery
under the Clawback Policy, such amount (adjusted for investment gains and losses) shall be
removed from the Participant’s Account and shall be permanently and irrevocably forfeited.
The provisions of this section for removal of amounts from a Participant’s Account shall
also apply to the Beneficiary of a Participant after the Participant’s death.”




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment 2008-2 to the Nordstrom Executive Deferred Compensation Plan
(2007 Restatement) is executed this 19th day of November, 2008.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	NORDSTROM, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ DELENA SUNDAY
 	 
	 	 	Delena Sunday 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Executive Vice President

Human Resources and Diversity Affairs
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DARREN RIDDOCK,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Appellee.

§

§ 

§ No. 17, 2023

§

§ Court Below: Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. 0603012717 (N)

§ 

§

Submitted: July 18, 2023

Decided: July 31, 2023

ORDER

On March 17, 2023, the Court issued a briefing schedule in this appeal; the 

appellant’s opening brief was due by April 18, 2023. The Court later granted the 

appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file his brief, ordering that the opening 

brief was due by June 20, 2023. On June 21, 2023, Court staff sent a brief 

delinquency letter to the appellant. On June 29, 2023, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued 

a notice, sent by certified mail, directing the appellant to show cause why this appeal 

should not be dismissed for his failure to file an opening brief. On July 7, 2023, the 

Court received the certified mail receipt indicating that the notice to show cause had 

been delivered. The appellant having failed to respond to the notice to show cause 

within the required ten-day period, dismissal of this action is deemed to be 

unopposed.
2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED under 

Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) and 29(b).

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow

Justice
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-2775

_____________________________

ROGER EARL BENDER JR,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Darlene F. Dickey, Judge.

December 19, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and ROBERTS and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Kathleen Stover, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Steven Edward Woods, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Case 1:07-cv-03535-AKH Document 6 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### SIMPSON v. LEE

No. 83 PC.

Case below: 39 N.C. App. 736.

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 May 1979.
Case 1:07-cv-03492-RJS Document 6 Filed 11/02/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### LEO BEASLEY v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY

No. 56

(Filed 15 December 1971)

On *certiorari*to the Court of Appeals to review its decision reported in 11 N.C. App. 34, 180 S.E. 2d 381 (1971), reversing the judgment of *Lee, District Court Judge,*26 August 1970 Session of District Court, Durham County.

At the trial the parties stipulated that this action presented questions of law only and that the facts essential to decision were not in dispute. Both parties moved for summary judgment under Rule 56, North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, and it was stipulated in writing that the court might render judgment based on an agreed statement of facts, which facts are fully set out in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. On these facts the District Court concluded that the policy issued by Hartford was written under the North Carolina Assigned Risk Plan and was an assigned risk policy within the meaning of G.S. 20-279.21(f) (1) and G.S. 20-279.34; that the policy was in force on 20 April 1969, and that Thomas Brunson, Jr., was an assigned risk insured under the policy issued by Hartford (No. 22AZ153249). The court then denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and allowed defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals; and that court in a well-reasoned opinion by Judge Morris, concurred in by Judges Brock and Vaughn, reversed the judgment of the District Court.

*Newsom, Graham, Strayhorn, HedricJc & Murray, by E. C. Bryson, Jr., and K. Byron McCoy for defendant appellant.*

*C. Horton Poe, Jr., for plaintiff appellee.*

Per Curiam.

We allowed *certiorari*to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, but after further consideration we feel that the decision of the Court of Appeals is correct, and for the reasons set out in Judge Morris’ opinion it should be and is affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### STATE v. NEELY

No. 60 PC.

Case below: 26 N.C. App. 707.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 5 November 1975. Appeal dismissed ex mero motu for lack of substantial constitutional question 5 November 1975.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Trade Commission

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandra M. Peay, Contact Representative or Renee Hallman, Contact Representative, Federal Trade Commission, Premerger Notification Office, Bureau of Competition, Room H-303, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 326-3100.

By Direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 07-4889 Filed 10-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 46 Filed 07/31/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### MIMS v. MIMS

No. 16 PC

No. 10 (Spring Term)

Case below: 48 N.C* App. 216

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 4 November 1980.
#### STATE v. DARK

No. 72 PC.

Case below: 22 N.C. App. 566.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 24 September 1974.
Case 1:06-cr-00477-LBS Document 16 Filed 05/16/2008 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                               8
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,247
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,504
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,431
<PP&E>                                          30,795
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,647
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,722
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,568
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,550
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,273
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,722
<SALES>                                         20,065
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,065
<CGS>                                           15,435
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,435
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,269
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  39
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,470
<INCOME-TAX>                                       566
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                904
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       904
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from Kellwood Company and Subsidiaries Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheet at April 30, 2000, and from the Condensed
Consolidated Statement of Earnings and Condensed Consolidated
Statement of Cash Flows for the three months ended April 30,
2000, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                          40,312
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  427,074
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,159
<INVENTORY>                                    323,928
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               816,364
<PP&E>                                         254,966
<DEPRECIATION>                                 152,101
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,091,001
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          256,207
<BONDS>                                        378,165
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       166,304
<OTHER-SE>                                     266,139
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,091,001
<SALES>                                        649,440
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               649,440
<CGS>                                          507,976
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  507,976
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                93,160
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,280
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,088
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 48,304
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             29,004
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    29,004
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.17


</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-3 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-3 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-3 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-3 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-3 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 5 of 5
#### SERVICE STATIONS v. PRESSLEY

No. 25 PC.

Case below: 24 N.C. App. 586.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 2 April 1975.