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

**WABCO HOLDINGS INC.**

**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 WABCO Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jacques Esculier, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that 

(i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report. 

 

Dated: August 7, 2008
237 So.2d 870

#### Re Frankie Lee HANNAH v. KELLERMAN MINING COMPANY, a Corp., et al. Ex parte Frankie Lee HANNAH.

6 Div. 798.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 10, 1970.

George S. Wright, Rosen, Wright, Selden & Hardwood, Tuscaloosa, for petitioner.

McQueen, Ray & Allison, Tuscaloosa, for respondents.

LAWSON, Justice.

Petition of Frankie Lee Hannah for certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision in Hannah v. Kellerman Mining Co., a *735Corp. et al, 46 Ala.App. 63, 237 So.2d 867 (6 Div. 47).

Writ denied.

LIVINGSTON, C. J, and SIMPSON, MERRILL, COLEMAN and MADDOX, JJ, concur.
#### James Aggrey-Kweggyirr ARUNGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sgt. WELDON, Detective Officer of the Alameda City Department of Police, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 72-2275.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Nov. 15, 1972.

James Aggrey-Kweggyirr Arunga, in pro. per.

Frederick M. Cunningham, City Atty., Alameda, Cal., Peter W. Davis, of Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May, Oakland, Cal., for defendants-appellees.

Before DUNIWAY, ELY and TRASK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiff filed an action against the City of Alameda alleging that he had been deprived of rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1986. The complaint was dismissed on motion upon the ground that the city is not a “person” and cannot be sued under the Civil Rights Act. An amended pleading based upon the same statute against the same defendant was again dismissed and this appeal taken.1

It is abundantly clear that a municipal corporation is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed. *6762d 492 (1961); Moor v. Madigan, 458 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1972); Diamond v. Pitchess, 411 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 1969). The district court was unquestionably correct and we affirm.

1

. An application for a three-judge court was also denied below, but that order is not properly before us.
#### In the Matter of Kareem C. and Others, Children Alleged to be Neglected. Gregory K., Appellant; Commissioner of Social Services, Respondent.

[678 NYS2d 96]

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Stewart Weinstein, J.), entered on or about August 15, 1995, which, upon a finding of neglect, placed three of the subject children in the custody of petitioner Commissioner of Social Services for 12 months and the fourth child in the custody of his paternal grandmother for 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of evidence that respondent failed to avail himself of the drug rehabilitation and other programs to which he had been repeatedly referred by petitioner, and to provide adequate food, shelter and clothing for the children (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]; § 1046 [a] [iii]; *see, Matter of Selathia Nicole F.,*243 AD2d 400, *lv denied*91 NY2d 806; *Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. [Dante M.] v Denise J.,*87 NY2d 73, 80). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Williams, JJ.
Exhibit 31.1


                 CERTIFICATION BY PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                  PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Marcello Bottoli, certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Samsonite
         Corporation;

2.       Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
         statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
         necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
         under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
         the period covered by this annual report; and

3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
         information included in this annual report, fairly present in all
         material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
         cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
         this annual report.


                                      By  /s/ Marcello Bottoli
                                          ----------------------------
                                          Name:   Marcello Bottoli
                                          Title:  President and Chief Executive
                                                  Officer

Date: June 4, 2004
#### BROUSSARD v. ACADIAN PRODUCTION CORPORATION.

No. 17347.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

May 6, 1940.

*83Alex W. Swords, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Gill & Simon, of New Orleans, for appel-lee.

McCALEB, Judge.

This suit was instituted by Nathan Broussard, to recover from the defendant, Acadian Production Corporation of Louisiana, the balance of $153.75 allegedly due to him for certain hauling and trucking work performed by him at the request of the defendant in connection with the latter’s oil drilling operations in the Parishes of Iberia and St. Mary. The total amount of plaintiff’s charges for the services performed amounted to $253.75 and the defendant paid on account thereof the sum of $100, leaving an unpaid balance of $153.75.

The defendant, in answer to plaintiff’s suit, admitted that plaintiff had performed certain work for it but contended that the price charged by him was grossly excessive. It averred that a reasonable charge for the' services of the plaintiff would be $185; that it has paid on account $100 and that it owes to him not more than $85.

When the case was called for trial on the issue thus presented, counsel for the defendant moved ’ for a continuance of the matter on the ground that one Corley, a material witness for defendant, had failed to appear in court. Whereupon, counsel for plaintiff objected to the granting of the motion because the defendant had failed to summon this witness previous to the trial as required by Article 469 of the Code of Practice. In view of the defendant’s neglect in that respect and in accordance with the provisions of Article 470 of the Code of Practice, the court refused to continue the matter and the plaintiff introduced his evidence in support of his claim. The defendant offered no testimony and the court, being satisfied that plaintiff’s proof was sufficient to establish his case, granted judgment in his favor for the amount sued for. The defendant has taken a suspensive appeal from the adverse decision.

The judgment is correct. There was no defense offered and when the case was called for argument in this' court, counsel for defendant did not appear nor did he file a brief.

Plaintiff has answered the appeal praying that the judgment be amended so as to allow ten per cent damages as a penalty for frivolous appeal. A reading of the record has been sufficient to convince us that this appeal was taken for delay only and, consequently, the judgment will be affirmed with damages. See Code of Practice, Article 907.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from be, amended so as to allow ten per cent damages as a penalty for frivolous appeal and, as thus amended, it is affirmed at defendant’s cost.'

Amended and affirmed.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

TASHAUNA SIMPSON,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 5D17-2007

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

________________________________/

Opinion filed October 6, 2017

Petition for Belated Appeal

A Case of Original Jurisdiction. 

Tashauna Simpson, Ocala, pro se. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General 

Tallahassee, and, Kaylee D. Tatman,

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM. 

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed

with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the July 22, 2016, 

judgments and sentences in Case Nos. 2015-CF-003187-A-O, 2015-CF-004451-A-O, in 

the Circuit Court in and for Orange County, Florida. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D). 

PETITION GRANTED.

SAWAYA, EVANDER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
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 I, Thomas L. Millner, certify that
this annual report on Form 10-K of Remington Arms Company, Inc. fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in this annual report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant. Date: March 30, 2006
        /s/ Thomas L. Millner

Thomas L. Millner
President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Ernest K. Thomas, Appellant, v. John N. Noonan and Others, Respondents.

Motion granted.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 662

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 50 percent

limitation on the amount of business meal and entertainment expenses

which are deductible.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 24, 1995

Mrs. VUCANOVICH (for herself and Mr. ENSIGN) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal

the 50 percent limitation on the amount of business

meal and entertainment expenses which are deductible.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF 50 PERCENT LIMITATION ON DE4 DUCTION FOR BUSINESS MEAL AND ENTER5 TAINMENT EXPENSES.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 274 of the Internal Reve7 nue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subsection (n)

8 (relating to only 50 percent of meal and entertainment
2

•HR 662 IH

1 expenses allowed as deduction) and by redesignating sub2 section (o) as subsection (n).

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

4 subsection (a) shall apply to expenses paid or incurred

5 after the date of the enactment of this Act in taxable years

6 ending after such date.

Æ
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.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Office of Thrift Supervision 

          - [AC-24: OTS Nos. 0890 and H4521] 

                    Notice is hereby given that on August 12, 2008, the Office of Thrift Supervision approved the application of Home Bank, Lafayette, Louisiana, to convert to the stock form of organization. Copies of the application are available for inspection by appointment (phone number: (202) 906-5922 or e-mail:                     *Public.Info@OTS.Treas.gov*) at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552, and the OTS Midwest Regional Office, 225 E. John Carpenter Freeway, Suite 500, Irving, Texas 75062-2326.                 

Dated: August 14, 2008.

By the Office of Thrift Supervision. 

Sandra E. Evans, 

Federal Register Liaison.

[FR Doc. E8-19225 Filed 8-20-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6720-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>    1000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                             466
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    17159
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      26982
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 46335
<PP&E>                                           73713
<DEPRECIATION>                                   24972
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   98184
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            15185
<BONDS>                                          34108
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            63
<OTHER-SE>                                       42064
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     98184
<SALES>                                         117739
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                117739
<CGS>                                           101273
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   101273
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1983
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3148
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1196
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1952
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1952
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .31
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 610 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 610

To prohibit States from discriminating in the admission to the practice 
      of law of graduates of accredited and certified law schools.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 20, 1995

  Mr. Meehan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit States from discriminating in the admission to the practice 
      of law of graduates of accredited and certified law schools.

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds that--
            (1) the vast majority of States only allow out-of-State 
        residents having gone to schools accredited by the American bar 
        Association to sit for the bar;
            (2) many law school graduates are being restricted in their 
        admission to practice law because they have elected to attend a 
        school that is not so accredited;
            (3) each State requires bar applicants to pass its 
        individual exam of minimum competency before the applicants can 
        practice law within its borders; and
            (4) States should rely on such exams, not arbitrary 
        distinctions in State accrediting and certifying procedures, to 
        distinguish between qualified and unqualified candidates for 
        admission.

SEC. 2. STATE RESTRICTIONS ON ADMISSIONS TO PRACTICE OF LAW.

    No State shall discriminate in the admission of individuals to the 
practice of law on the basis of whether such individuals successfully 
completed a program of post-baccalaureate legal education of a law 
school that--
            (1) is approved by the accrediting or certifying agency of 
        the State in which the law school is located,
            (2) is approved by an educational accrediting agency 
        recognized by the State in which the law school is located, or
            (3) is approved by the American Bar Association.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
The Cerplex Group, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-84946 and 333-18431) on Form S-8, the registration statement (No. 333-12581)
on Form S-3 and the registration statement (No. 333-28425) on Form S-2 of The
Cerplex Group, Inc. of our report dated February 25, 1998, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of The Cerplex Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' deficiency and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1997, and all related schedules, which
report appears in the December 31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of The
Cerplex Group, Inc. Our report dated February 25, 1998, contains an explanatory
paragraph that states that the Company has suffered recurring losses from
operations, has net stockholders' and working capital deficiencies and does not
have the necessary funds to pay its secured and unsecured debt obligations which
raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going
concern. The consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules
do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this
uncertainty.

                                            KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


                                            By: /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
                                                --------------------------------

Orange County, California
February 27, 1998
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.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Maritime Administration

# ACTION:

National Advisory Council public meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Maritime Administration announces that the Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council (MTSNAC) will hold a meeting to review and approve an updated and revised Intermodal Report, finalize an expanded Marine Transportation System outreach and education program to addresses the economic benefits that our ports and the Marine Transportation System contribute to the nation, and discuss other issues of importance to the Marine Transportation System. A public comment period is scheduled for 11:15 a.m.-11:45 p.m. on Wednesday, September 17, 2008. To provide time for as many people to speak as possible, speaking time for each individual will be limited to three minutes. Members of the public who would like to speak are asked to contact Richard J. Lolich by September 10, 2008. Commenter's will be placed on the agenda in the order in which notifications are received. If time allows, additional comments will be permitted. Copies of oral comments must be submitted in writing at the meeting. Additional written comments are welcome and must be filed by September 27, 2008.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 17, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Thursday, September 18, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held in the Sheraton National Hotel, 900 South Orme Street Arlington, Virginia 22204. The hotel's phone number is 703-521-1900.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Richard Lolich, (202) 366-0704; Maritime Administration, MAR-540, Room W21-309, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001;                         *richard.lolich@dot.gov.*

Authority:5 U.S.C. App 2, Sec. 9(a)(2); 41 CFR 101-6. 1005; DOT Order 1120.3B)

By order of the Maritime Administration.

Dated: August 13, 2008.

Leonard Sutter,

Secretary, Maritime Administration.

[FR Doc. E8-19257 Filed 8-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-81-P