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





Certification by 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 Annual Report of The Pantry, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 24, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Terrance M. Marks, President and 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, to my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company.








/s/    Terrance M. MarksTerrance M. MarksPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: December 8, 2009





This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not
be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documents 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 the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Joseph Battaglia, as Administrator, etc., of Sanducci Battaglia, Deceased, Appellant, v. New York Contracting Company, Pennsylvania Terminal, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
#### Sebastiano Acardo v. New York Contracting Company.

Motion denied on terms stated in order.
#### William J. McNeill, Respondent, v. Jules S. Bache and Others, Appellants.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. All concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                           4,838
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,820
<ALLOWANCES>                                       200
<INVENTORY>                                     10,783
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,914
<PP&E>                                          24,551
<DEPRECIATION>                                (13,892)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,627
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,191
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            34
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,534
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,627
<SALES>                                         30,253
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,253
<CGS>                                           21,175
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,175
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,023
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (76)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    131
<INCOME-TAX>                                        52
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 79
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        79
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03


</TABLE>
#### Lulu Knapton, Respondent, v. Arthur G. Holland, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 155 (Monday, August 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18458]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 5, 2008.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Kenneth Binning, 
Director, Regional and Community Bank Group) 101 Market Street, San 
Francisco, California 94105-1579:
    1. Global Bancorp, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 
100 percent of the voting shares of Global Trust Bank, both of Mountain 
View, California.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 6, 
2008.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8-18458 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
#### George E. Millard, Respondent, v. John Marsellus Manufacturing Company, Limited, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except McLennan, P. J., who dissented upon the ground that the evidence fails to show that the negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the injury.
#### Herman Bell, Sr., v. State

No. 25476.

November 14, 1951.

Hon. R. L. Templeton, Judge Presiding.

*W. P. Spillman,*Wellington, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

*441MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is possession of whiskey in a dry area for the purpose of sale; the punishment, a fine of $200.00.

Our able State’s Attorney has confessed error herein because of the failure of the state to establish that the order of the commissioners’ court declaring the result of the prohibition election was ever published as required by law.

Such failure resulted in a reversal in Sweeten v. State, 135 Tex. Cr. R. 445, 120 S. W. (2d) 1074; in Craig v. State, 145 Tex. Cr. R. 186, 167 S. W. (2d) 523; in Jones v. State, 154 Tex. Cr. R. 88, 225 S. W. (2d) 190; and in numerous other cases over a period of many years.

The reason for this rule lies in the fact that the local option election does not in itself, standing alone, make illegal that which had been legal. Notice to the public of the result of such election is a prerequisite.

For the errors shown, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Exhibit







Exhibit 10.40



AMENDMENT
TO THE
BAKER HUGHES, A GE COMPANY, LLC  BENEFITS PLANS 




THIS AMENDMENT, effective as of January 1, 2020 (this “Amendment”), by BAKER HUGHES, A GE COMPANY, LLC (formerly known as Baker Hughes Incorporated), a Delaware limited liability company (“BHGE LLC”).


WHEREAS, the name of Baker Hughes, a GE company has changed to Baker Hughes Company; and


WHEREAS, by operation of law, BHGE LLC is the successor in interest to Baker Hughes Incorporated; and 


WHEREAS, BHGE LLC desires to amend the Baker Hughes, a GE company Supplementary Pension Plan, the Baker Hughes, a GE company Welfare Benefits Plan, the Baker Hughes, a GE company Health Care Flexible Spending Account Plan, the Baker Hughes, a GE company Retiree Welfare Benefits Plan, the Baker Hughes, a GE company Retiree Health Reimbursement Arrangement and the Baker Hughes, a GE company Severance Program for Employees (the “Plans”) to reflect such name change; and


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plans are amended as follows. 


1.All references to “Baker Hughes, a GE company” in the plans are changed to “Baker Hughes Company”. 


		
	2.
	The names of the Baker Hughes, a GE company Supplementary Pension Plan, the Baker Hughes a GE company Welfare Benefits Plan, the Baker Hughes, a GE company Health Care Flexible Spending Account Plan, the Baker Hughes, a GE company Retiree Welfare Benefits Plan, the Baker Hughes, a GE company Retiree Health Reimbursement Arrangement and the Baker Hughes, a GE company Severance Program for Employees  are changed to the Baker Hughes Company Supplementary Pension Plan, the Baker Hughes Company Welfare Benefits Plan, the Baker Hughes Company Health Care Flexible Spending Account Plan, the Baker Hughes Company Retiree Welfare Benefits Plan, the Baker Hughes Company Retiree Health Reimbursement Arrangement and the Baker Hughes Company Severance Program for Employees, respectively.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, BHGE LLC has executed this Amendment by its duly authorized corporate officer effective as of the day and year first written above.


 [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]









BAKER HUGHES,
A GE COMPANY, LLC


/s/ Manjit Gill 
By:  Manjit Gill 
Its:   Vice President, Total Rewards 




The undersigned Lee Whitley, does hereby certify that he/she is the duly elected qualified acting Secretary of BAKER HUGHES, A GE COMPANY, LLC (“BHGE LLC”) and further certifies that the person whose signature appears above is a duly elected, qualified and acting officer of BHGE LLC with full power and authority to execute this Amendment on behalf of BHGE LLC and to take such other actions and execute such other documents as may be necessary to effectuate this Amendment.


/s/ Lee Whitley 
Secretary
BAKER HUGHES, A GE COMPANY, LLC
* 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. 07-10948 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JUAN MARTINEZ, JR Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:07-CR-47-1
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Juan Martinez, Jr., appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. He contends that after U nited States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release are reviewed under the reasonableness standard. Further, he argues that the sentence imposed above the recommended range was unreasonable in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the district court failed to United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D July 22, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-10948

2 articulate any reasons for imposing the sentence. Because Martinez did not object in the district court to the reasonableness ofhis sentence or to the district court’s failure tostate reasonsfor the sentence imposed, reviewisfor plain error. See United States v. Jones, 484 F.3d 783, 792 (5th Cir. 2007). The district court sentenced Martinez to 18 months of imprisonment. Martinez’s sentence, while in excess ofthe 5 to 11-month range indicated by the policy statements, was within the 24-month statutory maximum term of imprisonment that the district court could have imposed. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a)(3), 3583(e)(3); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 846; U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). Therefore, Martinez’s sentence was neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable, and he has not shown plain error. See Jones, 484 F.3d at 786, 792. Further, even if the district court’s failure to articulate reasons for the sentence imposed constituted plain error, Martinez has failed to show that the
error affected his substantial rights because the 18-month sentence was supported by the record and not contrary to law. See United States v. IzaguirreLosoya, 219 F.3d 437, 441-42 (5th Cir. 2000). Finally, any error in failing to articulate reasons for the sentence imposed would not aff ect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. See id. at 442. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
-0620 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. STEVEN JAMES CLIFTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 25, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 18 2022

04/18/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0620
| (1)   | the                quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Red Pearl Acquisition Corp. for                the                quarter ended September 30, 2007 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 quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the                quarter ended September 30, 2007, fairly presents in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Red                Pearl                Acquisition Corp.. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/                Brian Haveson                                                                   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:  | Brian                Haveson                                                                       |
| Title: | Principal                Executive Officer,Principal                Financial Officer and Director |
| Date:  | November                14, 2007                                                                   |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF INCOME, STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS, BALANCE SHEET, AND STATEMENT OF
COMMON STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000811156
<NAME> CMS ENERGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        4,157
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      5,963
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                           2,693
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         3,442
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,255
<COMMON>                                             1
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                        2,623
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                               (95)
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   2,309
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,089
<PREFERRED>                                         44
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                             1,819
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                 432
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                        5,427
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      510
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                         81
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                    32
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   4,292
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                   16,255
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        5,821
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                88
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       5,076
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       5,164
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            657
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                  64
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                     721
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           433
<NET-INCOME>                                       288
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         72
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                      216
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                           122
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             163
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.93


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Christopher Hedlund v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-12-00378-CR

Trial court case number: 1749885

Trial court: County Criminal Court at Law No. 8 of Harris County

Appellant moves to reverse the judgment of the trial court and to remand for a new trial 

because the reporter’s record has been lost or destroyed, pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure 

34.6(f). Appellant asserts that “no trial transcript, aside from the voir dire, has been filed.”

The Court’s records reflect that, on November 9, 2012, the court reporter filed volumes 1, 

3, and 4 of the reporter’s record. On November 26, 2012, the reporter filed volume 2. The 

reporter has informed the Court that the complete record has been properly filed in the abovereferenced case.

After inspection of the record, all of the items listed in the Master Index are included in 

the record filed, including a transcript of the trial (opening through closing argument), 

punishment, and exhibits. The transcript includes testimony by this appellant.

Appellant’s motion to reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for a new trial on the 

basis of a lost or destroyed reporter’s record is denied.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: February 28, 2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                            8555                    4256
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     9739                    8108
<ALLOWANCES>                                       534                     339
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 18797                   13292
<PP&E>                                            8623                    7642
<DEPRECIATION>                                    4533                    3242
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   25557                   17692
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             9267                    6620
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           877                     862
<OTHER-SE>                                       14526                    9135
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     25557                   17692
<SALES>                                          33913                   22525
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 33913                   22525
<CGS>                                            17867                   15035
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    30950                   27032
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  54                      26
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3180                  (4199)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       100                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3080                  (4199)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.45                  (0.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42                  (0.63)
        

</TABLE>