alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Applied Signal Technology, Inc.Exhibit 32.1**

Certification of Chief Executive Officer 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 Report of Applied Signal Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 29, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary L. Yancey, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

| 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. |

 

| /s/ Gary L. Yancey      --------------------------------------------------------- | Date: September 7, 2005      -------------------------------- |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| Gary L. Yancey,      President and      Chief Executive Officer                   |                                                          |
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 26813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11195]



[[Page 26813]]

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

 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>12154]


New Hampshire Disaster <greek-i>NH-00016 Declaration of Economic 
Injury

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) 
declaration for the State of New Hampshire, dated 05/04/2010.
    Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 02/26/2010 through 03/14/2010.
    Effective Date: 05/04/2010.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 02/04/2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury 
disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other 
locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties:
    Grafton, Hillsborough, Merrimack, Rockingham, Strafford, Sullivan.
Contiguous Counties:
    New Hampshire: Belknap, Carroll, Cheshire, Coos.
    Massachusetts: Essex, Middlesex, Worcester.
    Maine: York.
    Vermont: Caledonia, Essex, Orange, Windham, Windsor.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Businesses and Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit      4.000
 Available Elsewhere..........................................
Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere...     3.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 121540.
    The States which received an EIDL Declaration <greek-i> are New 
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59002)

    Dated: May 4, 2010.
Karen G. Mills,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-11195 Filed 5-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Opinion issued December 3, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-21-00489-CV

———————————

IN RE DAVID LANZER, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, David Lanzer, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging 

the trial court’s denial of his motion to transfer the underlying suit affecting the 

parent-child relationship from Harris County to Montgomery County.

1 We deny the 

1 The underlying case is In the Interest of T.H.L and S.A.L., Children, cause number 

2020-71025, pending in the 507th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the 

Honorable Julia Maldonado presiding.
2

petition. We dismiss any pending motions, including relator’s motion for 

reconsideration of our denial of his request for a temporary stay, as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly and Landau.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.13
                             FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
                              AMENDED AND RESTATED
                     HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT CORPORATION
                        SENIOR EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN

In the exercise of the powers and authority conferred upon and reserved to
Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America under and by virtue of Section
11.01 of the Amended and Restated Health Care and Retirement Corporation Senior
Executive Retirement Plan, hereinafter called the "Plan", Health Care and
Retirement Corporation of America hereby amends said Plan in the manner and to
the extent set forth herein:

1.       Section 2.01 of the Plan is amended to read as follows:

         "2.01 Eligible Participants.
               ---------------------
                  Designated Corporate Officers and other designated Salary
         Employees of the Company who are designated by the President of the
         Company to participate in the Plan shall be Participants in the Plan.
         Corporate Officers who were Participants in the Plan as of January 1,
         1998 shall continue to be Participants in the Plan without
         designation."

2.       Section 2.02 of the Plan is amended to read as follows:

         "2.02 Applicable Interest RateCorporate Officer.
               -----------------------------------------
                  The term "Corporate Officer" shall mean an officer of the
         Company who is chosen by the Board of Directors of the Company to hold
         an executive position in the Company."

3.       The amendments set forth in this First Amendment shall be effective
         January 1, 1998.

4.       The Plan, as amended, shall continue in full force and effect.



<PAGE>   2

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America has caused
this First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Health Care and Retirement
Corporation Senior Executive Retirement Plan to be executed by a duly authorized
officer as of the 1st day of January, 1998.

                                              HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT
                                              CORPORATION OF AMERICA

                                              By_______________________________
                                               PRESIDENT

ATTEST:

By____________________________
    SECRETARY
#### French et al v. Lancaster et al.

*Appeal from the District Cowrt of Lawrence County.*

*Corson & Thomas, Thomas Dent, C. A. Follansbee, Campbell & Smith,*for appellants.

*McLaughlin & Steele*for respondents.

This action was tried in the Lawrence county District Court to a jury and a verdict and judgment rendered and entered for the plaintiffs for the possession of the mining ground in controversy and for $15,706 damages. No opinion has been written in the case, Judge Barnes, to whom it was assigned, having gone out of office before the opinion was prepared. In the decision, the same principle was applied to the mineral lands in controversy, situated *347in the Black Hills, as was decided with reference to the real property in the case of *ühlig v. Garrison, ante.*The Court held that no title to mining ground could there be acquired by acts of location or appropriation done prior to the 28th day of February, 1877, and while the great Sioux Indian Reservation covered that district of country. That this action having been tried to a jury and a general verdict rendered, without regard to the existence of said reservation, and upon the theory that such reservation did not affect the question between these parties, it was a mistrial, notwithstanding the parties had stipulated thus to try the action; public policy requiring the Court to take notice of the facts, even though parties might stipulate to the contrary. Associate Justice Moody dissented upon the ground that the parties having stipulated in writing to waive all objections that might have been taken to evidence of acts of location and appropriation prior to February 28th, 1877, and to try the ease as though no such reservation had ever existed, they were now precluded from raising the question for the first time in this court; but he agreed with the majority of the court upon the general proposition that no rights could be acquired in that district of country while the reservation covered the same.

*Judgment below reversed.*
No. 07-15-00066-CR

Luis Angel Aguilera

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

Appellee §

§

§

§ From the 47th District Court

of Potter County

April 20, 2015

Opinion Per Curiam

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated April 20, 2015

, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that this appeal be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

It is further ordered that appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended for which

let execution issue.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
EXHIBIT 99.1

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


     In connection with the Annual Report of Office Managers, Inc., on Form
10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, John M. Hickey, Principal Executive Officer and John R. Rask,
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of
     the Company.



Date: March 26, 2003         /S/ John Hickey
                             John M. Hickey, Principal Executive Officer



Date: March 26, 2003         /S/ John R. Rask
                             John R. Rask, Principal Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50371

Summary Calendar

NEAL SHARKEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DAVID MOYA, Senior Warden; CHARLES C. BELL;

KENNETH B. GREEN, JR., Warden; JAMES ROBISON, DR.;

ROCHELLE MCKINNEY, R.N.,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-99-CV-112

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

September 14, 2000

Before SMITH, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM: *

Neal Sharkey (Texas prisoner #679802) has filed an application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP) on appeal, following the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint.

By moving fo r IFP, Sharkey is challenging the district court’s certification that IFP should not be

granted on appeal because an appeal would be frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202

(5th Cir. 1997).

Sharkey argues that his visual acuity o f 20/200 in both eyes and glaucoma in his left eye

renders him disabled for the purposes of t he Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He furtherargues that the defendants’ refusal to grant his request for a “one row restriction,” or a restriction

requiring a first-floor cell, amounted to discrimination under the ADA.

Sharkey has failed to show that he will present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. As the district

court correctly noted, Sharkey has not alleged, much less presented any evidence establishing, that

his impaired vision “substantially limit ed” any major life activity to the extent required by the ADA.

See Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc.

, 119 S. Ct. 2139, 2149 (1999); Still v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc.

,

120 F.3d 50, 52 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we uphold the district court’s order certifying that the

instant appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues. Sharkey’s request for IFP status is DENIED, and his

appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous will count as a “strike” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). S ee Adepegba v. Hammons

, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). Sharkey is warned

that if he accumulates three “strikes” pursuant to § 1915(g), he may not proceed IFP in any civil

action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facilit y unless he is under imminent

danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; § 1915(g) WARNING ISSUED.
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

In connection with the quarterly report of B & D Food Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel Ollech,
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and
Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.

Dated:    August 22, 2005              By: /s/ Daniel Ollech
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Daniel Ollech
                                           President,  Chief Executive  Officer,
                                           Chief  Financial  Officer,  Treasurer
                                           and Secretary
# Journal officiel C 102A/24 a

| | ISSN 1725-2431 |
| --- | --- |
| Journal officiel
  de l'Union européenne | C 102A |
| | |
| Édition de langue française | Communications et informations | 51e année24 avril 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2431

Journal officiel

de l'Union européenne

C 102A

Édition de langue française

Communications et informations

51e année24 avril 2008

---

| Numéro d'information | Sommaire | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Avis |
| | PROCÉDURES ADMINISTRATIVES |
| | Office européen de sélection du personnel (EPSO) |
| 2008/C 102A/01 | Listes de réserve — Concours général EPSO/AD/72/06: Administrateurs linguistes (AD7) — Interprètes de conférence pour la langue française | 1 |

Numéro d'information

Sommaire

page

V   Avis

PROCÉDURES ADMINISTRATIVES

Office européen de sélection du personnel (EPSO)

2008/C 102A/01

Listes de réserve — Concours général EPSO/AD/72/06: Administrateurs linguistes (AD7) — Interprètes de conférence pour la langue française

1

| FR | |
| --- | --- |

FR

---

V Avis

PROCÉDURES ADMINISTRATIVES

Office européen de sélection du personnel (EPSO)

| 24.4.2008 | FR | Journal officiel de l'Union européenne | CA 102/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2008

FR

Journal officiel de l'Union européenne

CA 102/1

---

LISTES DE RÉSERVE

   (1)

CONCOURS GÉNÉRAL EPSO/AD/72/06

ADMINISTRATEURS LINGUISTES (AD7)

INTERPRÈTES DE CONFÉRENCE POUR LA LANGUE FRANÇAISE

(2008/C 102 A/01

OPTION 1

Groupe de mérite 1

| DOLISY | Monique |
| --- | --- |
| GIULIANI | Fabienne |
| GROSJEAN | Stéphane |
| KUBBEN | Thomas |
| MIMMI | Marco |
| ROBIN | Marie-Gwenn |
| VANDEKERKHOVE | Véronique |

DOLISY

Monique

GIULIANI

Fabienne

GROSJEAN

Stéphane

KUBBEN

Thomas

MIMMI

Marco

ROBIN

Marie-Gwenn

VANDEKERKHOVE

Véronique

OPTION 2

AUCUN LAURÉAT

La validité des listes de réserve expirera le 31 décembre 2009 et pourra être prorogée.

---

(1)  À la demande expresse d'un lauréat, son nom ne sera pas publié.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF HOOPER HOLMES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CASH
FLOWS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         466,414
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,519,171
<ALLOWANCES>                                   660,755
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,599,345
<PP&E>                                      19,104,043
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,139,022
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              61,601,470
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,096,500
<BONDS>                                      8,750,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       269,777
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,297,619
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                61,601,470
<SALES>                                    116,332,041
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           116,332,041
<CGS>                                       87,962,047
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               87,962,047
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            22,537,552
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               285,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,396,882
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,984,889
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,393,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,591,889
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,591,889
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### VOGEL, Respondent, *v.*NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.

[Submitted May 13, 1896.

Decided May 25, 1896.]

See *syllabus*and opinion in *Moore*y. *Northern Pacific Railroad Company, ante, page*290_

*Appeal from Ninth Judicial District, Gallatin Oounty.*

*Oullen & Toole*and *Fred M. Dudley,*for Appellant.

*Hartma/n Bros. & Stewart,*for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The record in this case presents exactly th( same facts, issues and questions involved iu *Colburn*v. *Northern Pacific R. R. Co.,*13 Mont. 476, and *Moore*v. *Northern Pacific R. R. Co.*just decided. Upon the authority of thes< cases the judgment appealed from in this case is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1797 Referred in House (RFH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1797

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 2, 2000

                 Referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To provide for a land conveyance to the city of Craig, Alaska, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. LAND EXCHANGE WITH CITY OF CRAIG, ALASKA.

    (a) At such time as Congress appropriates funds sufficient for the 
Secretary of Agriculture to acquire non-Federal lands within 
conservation system units on the Tongass National Forest, the Secretary 
shall convey to the city of Craig, Alaska, all Federal interests in the 
lands identified in subsection (b): Provided, That the lands conveyed 
to the city of Craig shall be of equal value to the lands acquired by 
the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to this subsection.
    (b) The approximately 4,532 acres of Federal lands to be conveyed 
to the city of Craig are described as follows:
            (1) All Federal land in the following described protracted 
        and partially surveyed townships in the Copper River Meridian, 
        Alaska:
                    (A) Within T. 71 S., R. 81 E--
                            Section 24, E\1/2\;
                            Section 25, E\1/2\, S\1/2\SW\1/4\;
                            Section 36.
                Containing 1,360 acres, more or less.
                    (B) Within T. 71 S., R. 82 E--
                            Section 19, S\1/2\SW\1/4\;
                            Section 29, W\1/4\NW\1/4\, N\1/2\SW\1/4\;
                            Section 30, All;
                            Section 31, All.
                Containing 1,500 acres, more or less.
                    (C) Within T. 72 S., R. 82 E--
                            Section 5, SW\1/4\NW\1/4\, W\1/2\, SW\1/4\;
                            Section 6, All;
                            Section 7, NE\1/4\NE\1/4\;
                            Section 8, W\1/2\, SW\1/4\SE\1/4\;
                            Section 17, NW\1/4\NW\1/4\, E\1/2\NW\1/4\, 
                        NE\1/4\SW\1/4\, W\1/2\NE\1/4\, NW\1/4\SE\1/4\, 
                        S\1/2\SE\1/4\;
                            Section 20, NE\1/4\.
                Containing 1,672 acres, more or less.

            Passed the Senate April 13, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
```