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





CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Las Vegas Gaming, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jon D. Berkley, as
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Bruce A. Shepard, as Chief
Financial 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:




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.




By:
            /s/
      Jon D. Berkley
            Dated:
            April
      7, 2009Jon
      D. BerkleyTitle:
            Chief
      Executive Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)By:
            /s/
      Bruce A. Shepard
            Dated:
            April
      7, 2009Bruce
      A. ShepardTitle:
            Chief
      Financial Officer
              (Principal
      Financial Officer)







This
certification is being furnished to the SEC as an exhibit to the Report pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to
the extent required by the of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by
the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.




A signed
copy of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided by the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1  Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)   I, Ed Bailey, Chief Executive Officer, and Principal Financial Officer, of LightTouch Vein & Laser, Inc. (the "Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period December 31, 2010 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):  (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 Registrant.  Dated:  May 17, 2011 By: /s/ Ed Bailey  Ed Bailey  Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer  * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to LightTouch Vein & Laser, Inc. and will be retained by LightTouch Vein & Laser, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 96 (Thursday, May 16, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 24854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12278]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board <SUP>1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-88, 109 
Stat. 803, which was enacted on December 29, 1995, and took effect 
on January 1, 1996, abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission and 
transferred certain functions to the Surface Transportation Board 
(Board). This notice relates to functions that are subject to Board 
jurisdiction pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 11323-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[STB Finance Docket No. 32940]


Buffalo & Pittsburgh Railroad, Inc.--Trackage Rights Exemption--
Pittsburg & Shawmut Railroad, Inc. [19490]

    Pittsburg & Shawmut Railroad, Inc. has agreed to grant local 
trackage rights to Buffalo & Pittsburgh Railroad, Inc. over 
approximately 1.5 miles of railroad located in Pennsylvania between 
milepost 1.5 near Dellwood Junction and milepost 0.00 at Brockway Yard. 
The trackage rights were to become effective on or after May 10, 1996.
    This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If the notice 
contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab 
initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may 
be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not stay 
the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 32940, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, 1201 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20423 and served on: James B. Gray, Jr., 
Harter, Secrest & Emery, 700 Midtown Tower, Rochester, NY 14604-2070.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption 
authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to 
protect the interests of its employees. Section 11326(c), however, does 
not provide for labor protection for transactions under sections 11324 
and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Because this 
transaction involves Class III rail carriers only, the Board, under the 
statute, may not impose labor protective conditions for this 
transaction.

    Decided: May 10, 1996.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-12278 Filed 5-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
Case 4:17-mj-08749-BGM Document 5 Filed 11/08/17 Page 1 of 1
******************************************************

The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the

beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will

be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the

date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative

date for the beginning of all time periods for filing

postopinion motions and petitions for certification is

the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion.

In no event will any such motions be accepted before

the ‘‘officially released’’ date.

All opinions are subject to modification and technical

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the

event of discrepancies between the electronic version

of an opinion and the print version appearing in the

Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

latest print version is to be considered authoritative.

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying

the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official

Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service

and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes

of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of

the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal

Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.

******************************************************
LANE v. COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION—

CONCURRENCE

ZARELLA, J., with whom McDONALD, J., joins, concurring. I agree with the majority’s general conclusions

in this case. I respectfully disagree, however, with the

majority’s reliance on Blumberg Associates Worldwide,

Inc. v. Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc., 311 Conn.

123, 84 A.3d 840 (2014), for the proposition that the

‘‘[r]eview of an unpreserved claim may be appropriate

. . . when the minimal requirements for review are met

and . . . the party who raised the unpreserved claim

cannot prevail.’’ (Citation omitted; emphasis omitted;

footnote omitted.) Id., 157–58; see footnotes 16 and 20

of the majority opinion. Although the majority correctly

cites and applies this principle, I believe in retrospect

that reviewing an unpreserved claim on which a party

cannot prevail makes no sense because an inability to

prevail leaves the party raising the claim in exactly the

same position he would have been had the claim been

deemed unreviewable. In addition, reviewing an unpreserved claim on which a party cannot prevail consumes

valuable judicial resources that could be better utilized

to review properly preserved claims. Accordingly, both

logic and this court’s well established interest in fostering judicial economy suggest that the unpreserved claim

in the present case should not be reviewed.
Case 2:17-cr-00317-JAT   Document 244   Filed 08/21/19   Page 1 of 20

Case 2:17-cr-00317-JAT   Document 244   Filed 08/21/19   Page 2 of 20

Case 2:17-cr-00317-JAT   Document 244   Filed 08/21/19   Page 3 of 20

Case 2:17-cr-00317-JAT   Document 244   Filed 08/21/19   Page 4 of 20

Case 2:17-cr-00317-JAT   Document 244   Filed 08/21/19   Page 5 of 20

Case 2:17-cr-00317-JAT   Document 244   Filed 08/21/19   Page 6 of 20

Case 2:17-cr-00317-JAT   Document 244   Filed 08/21/19   Page 7 of 20

Case 2:17-cr-00317-JAT   Document 244   Filed 08/21/19   Page 8 of 20

Case 2:17-cr-00317-JAT   Document 244   Filed 08/21/19   Page 9 of 20

Case 2:17-cr-00317-JAT   Document 244   Filed 08/21/19   Page 10 of 20

Case 2:17-cr-00317-JAT   Document 244   Filed 08/21/19   Page 11 of 20

Case 2:17-cr-00317-JAT   Document 244   Filed 08/21/19   Page 12 of 20

Case 2:17-cr-00317-JAT   Document 244   Filed 08/21/19   Page 13 of 20

Case 2:17-cr-00317-JAT   Document 244   Filed 08/21/19   Page 14 of 20

Case 2:17-cr-00317-JAT   Document 244   Filed 08/21/19   Page 15 of 20

Case 2:17-cr-00317-JAT   Document 244   Filed 08/21/19   Page 16 of 20

Case 2:17-cr-00317-JAT   Document 244   Filed 08/21/19   Page 17 of 20

Case 2:17-cr-00317-JAT   Document 244   Filed 08/21/19   Page 18 of 20

Case 2:17-cr-00317-JAT   Document 244   Filed 08/21/19   Page 19 of 20

Case 2:17-cr-00317-JAT   Document 244   Filed 08/21/19   Page 20 of 20
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 318 

Recognizing July 2009 as ‘‘Energy Independence Month’’ and encouraging 

awareness and promoting education on energy independence in the 

United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 1, 2009 

Mr. SHIMKUS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing July 2009 as ‘‘Energy Independence Month’’ 

and encouraging awareness and promoting education on 

energy independence in the United States. 

Whereas the United States is the world’s largest consumer of 

oil, burning over 20 million barrels per day and over 7 

billion barrels per year; 

Whereas nearly 60 percent of the United States oil demand 

relies on imported oil; 

Whereas a significant percentage of these imports come from 

unfriendly foreign countries and countries in volatile regions; 

Whereas the United States has the resources and technology 

to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil; and 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 318 IH 

Whereas July 2009 would be an appropriate month to recognize as ‘‘Energy Independence Month’’: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the recognition of Energy Inde3 pendence Month; and 

4 (2) calls upon the people of the United States, 

5 interested groups, and State and local governments 

6 to observe the month with appropriate ceremonies 

7 and activities. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 25242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12578]



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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993; Financial Services Technology Consortium, Inc., 
Electronic Check Project

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 9, 1996, pursuant to 
Sec. 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Financial Services 
Technology Consortium, Inc.; Electronic Check Project has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, the changes are as 
follows: Novell, Inc., San Jose, CA; InraNet, Inc., Newton, MA; Global 
Concepts, Inc., Atlanta, GA and Bell Communications Research, Inc., 
Morristown, NJ have been added to the venture.
    On August 10, 1995, the Financial Services Technology Consortium 
filed its original notification pursuant to Sec. 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to Sec. 6(b) of the Act on January 31, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 
3463). The last notification was filed on February 13, 1996. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register on 
April 10, 1996. (61 Fed. Reg. 15970).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 96-12578 Filed 5-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
1 WO 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

9 United States of America, No. 17-04363P0-001-PCT-DMF 

10 Plaintiff, ORDER 

11 v. 

12 Blaine Nelson, 

13 Defendant. 

14tt-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__j 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

The defendant appeared in court with counsel. The defendant's probable cause 

hearing was waived and the detention hearing was submitted on the record. The Court 

finds probable cause to believe the defendant violated the terms of his supervised probation 

as alleged in the petition. The Court further finds, pursuant to Rule 32.l(a)(6), that 

defendant has failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk 

or a danger. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant shall be bound over for further 

proceedings on the petition to revoke his supervised probation. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant is detained as flight risk and danger, 

pending further revocation proceedings. 

Dated this 4th day of December, 2018. 

~h-~ Honorable Bruce G. Macdonald 

United States Magistrate Judge
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Wilbur LEWIS, Jr., Appellant. Wilbur LEWIS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. WD 49321, WD 50615.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 9, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Feb. 27, 1996.

Application to Transfer Denied April 23, 1996.

James C. Cox, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SMART, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and BERREY, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from jury conviction of robbery in the first degree, § 569.020, RSMo Cum.Supp. 1992, assault in the first degree, § 565.050, RSMo 1986, two counts of armed criminal action, § 571.015 RSMo 1986, and denial of Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief.

Affirmed. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
<PAGE>

                                                                  Execution Copy
November 6, 2000

Gary M. Philbin

Re:  Amendment to Employment Agreement dated April 13, 2000

Dear Gary:


The following sets forth the agreement between you and The Grand Union Company,
a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), regarding the terms of the amendment
("Amendment") to the employment agreement between you and the Company dated
April 13, 2000 (the "Employment Agreement"). In this regard, the Employment
Agreement is amended such that the amount of the Termination Payments set forth
in paragraphs 7(a) and 7 (b) are deleted and replaced in the aggregate by the
termination payments set forth in the Sale Bonus Agreement dated November 6,
2000 and the Retention Bonus Agreement dated November 6, 2000. Accordingly, you
are eligible for the Sale Bonus Payments and Retention Bonus Payments pursuant
to the terms of those agreements and are no longer eligible for the Termination
Payments under your Employment Agreement. In the event you are Involuntarily
Terminated, as such term is defined in the Sale Bonus and Retention Bonus
Agreements, you shall receive such Retention Bonus Payments within three (3)
days of the date of such Involuntary Termination and shall receive such Sale
Bonus Payments upon a Change in Control, as such term is defined in the Sale
Bonus Agreement. If your employment is not terminated, you shall receive the
Sale Bonus Payments and Retention Bonus Payments as set forth in those
agreements. The Employment Agreement is further amended by deleting the
following paragraphs: (i) paragraph 3(d) relating to SERP eligibility and (ii)
paragraph 4 and attachment A relating to stock options. The Employment Agreement
is clarified to indicate that (i) under paragraph 3(b) the minimum performance
threshold under the Bonus Plan for Fiscal Year 2001 is $77,000,000 of EBITDA and
(ii) Change of Control as defined in the Employment Agreement includes a sale of
substantially all of the Company's assets or a change of ownership effectuated
through a bankruptcy proceeding.

All other terms of your Employment Agreement shall continue in full force and
effect and the October 2, 2000 amendment of your Employment Agreement is null
and void and shall be of no effect. This Amendment has been approved by the
Board and by the Bankruptcy Court and all amounts payable hereunder shall be
paid as an administrative expense in such Bankruptcy proceeding.

                             Sincerely,


                             The Grand Union Company


                             By: ______________________
                             Name: Glenn J. Smith
                             Senior VP, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary




Agreed to as of this 6th day of November, 2000.




_____________________________
Gary Philbin
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 The Court has been advised that the parties have reached a settlement in this case 

(Doc. 30). Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that this case will be dismissed with prejudice by the Clerk of 

Court without further notice on November 14, 2018 unless a stipulation to dismiss or 

request for reinstatement on the Court’s trial calendar is filed prior to the dismissal date. 

Dated this 15th day of October, 2018. 

Honorable Steven P. Logan 

United States District Judge 

Phu Trong Bui, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Equifax Information Services, LLC, 

Defendant. 

 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-17-04376-PHX-SPL 

ORDER 

 

Case 2:17-cv-04376-SPL Document 31 Filed 10/15/18 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1082

MICHAEL A. MCNEIL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:13-cv-01501-WDQ)

Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: April 22, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. McNeil, Appellant Pro Se. Menachem Lanner, John 

Edward McCann, Jr., Jessica Anna-Christina duHoffmann, MILES & 

STOCKBRIDGE, PC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael A. McNeil appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his civil action filed pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1673 

(2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 

and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district 

court. McNeil v. Federal Network Sys., LLC, No. 1:13-cv-01501-

WDQ (D. Md. Jan. 22, 2014). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 10.22

                                   Allan Wolk
                            c/o URT Industries, Inc.
                        1180 East Hallandale Beach Blvd.
                            Hallandale, Florida 33009

                                                         July 11, 2000

URT Industries, Inc.
1180 East Hallandale Beach Blvd.
Hallandale, FL  33009

Gentlemen:

     It is the purpose of this letter to confirm our understanding  with respect
to the Amended and Restated Employment  Agreement,  dated as of October 1, 1994,
between URT  Industries,  Inc. and myself,  as amended to date (the  "Employment
Agreement").  Pursuant to paragraph 9(a) of the Employment Agreement,  URT would
be required to make certain payments to me under certain circumstances described
therein,  including,  without  limitation,  the  expiration  of  the  Employment
Agreement  in  accordance  with its terms and the  refusal of URT to continue my
employment  upon terms and conditions no less favorable than those  contained in
the Employment Agreement. This letter confirms as follows:

     1.  URT and I are  currently  in  negotiations  concerning  the  terms  and
conditions  of  the  proposed   continuation  of  my  employment  with  URT.  In
recognition  of  such  negotiations,  I have  agreed  that  provided  that  such
negotiations are still ongoing, I will not assert my rights under paragraph 9(a)
of the Employment Agreement before October 30, 2000.

     2. You  agree  that  all of my  rights  under  such  paragraph  9(a) of the
Employment Agreement are preserved,  and shall not be deemed to have been waived
or abrogated in any manner as a result of my agreement to the foregoing,  or any
alleged delay in the assertion of my rights under such paragraph 9(a).

     3.  Nothing  contained in this  Agreement  shall  obligate  either party to
continue  negotiations  for any  period  of time,  or to agree to any  continued
employment on my part.

     Please sign below to evidence our agreement.

                                           Sincerely yours,

                                           /s/ Allan Wolk
                                           -------------------------------
                                           Allan Wolk
Agreed:

URT Industries, Inc.

By: /s/ Brian Wolk
    ------------------------------
       Executive Vice-President