alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SENTRY PETROLEUM LTD. 
SHARE OPTION PLAN 
February 28, 2009



OPTION COMMITMENT



Notice is hereby given that, effective this 28th day of February, 2009 (the Effective Date) SENTRY PETROLEUM LTD. (the Company) has granted to Thanabalasingam Rajeswaran, an Option to acquire 375,000 Common Shares (Optioned Shares) up to 5:00 p.m. Pacific time on the 28th day of February, 2014 (the Expiry Date) at a Exercise Price of US$1.04 per share. Optioned Shares may be acquired as follows:

| |     |                                                                                                               
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (a) | 1/3 of the total number of Optioned Shares granted will vest twelve months after the Effective Date;          
| |     |                                                                                                               
| | (b) | a further 1/3 of the total number of Optioned Shares granted will vest 24 months after the Effective Date; and
| |     |                                                                                                               
| | (c) | the remaining 1/3 of the total number of Optioned Shares granted will vest 36 months after the Effective Date.

The grant of the Optioned Shares evidenced hereby is made subject to the terms and conditions of the Companys Share Option Plan, the terms and conditions of which are hereby incorporated in this Option Commitment.

To exercise your Option, deliver to the Company at its then principal business office, a written notice specifying the number of Optioned Shares you wish to acquire, together with cash or a certified cheque payable to the Company for the aggregate Exercise Price. A certificate for the Optioned Shares so acquired will be issued by the transfer agent as soon as practicable thereafter and will bear a legend stipulating any resale restrictions required under applicable securities laws.



SENTRY PETROLEUM LTD.

President



I hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of the Plan and agree to be bound by the terms of the Plan. This commitment supersedes any prior Option or commitment made to me.



OPTIONEE

_THANABALASINGAM RAJESWARAN_________

Name:     
  _Thanabalasingam Rajeswaran___________

Address:    ___________________________________

___________________________________









---
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


        In connection with the Report on Form 10-Q of nStor  Technologies,  Inc.
(the  "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the "Form  10-Q"),  I, Thomas L.
Gruber, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

        (1) The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.




/s/ Thomas L. Gruber
Thomas L. Gruber
Chief Financial Officer
August 4, 2003
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Report on Form 10-Q of nStor Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I, H.Irwin Levy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)        The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                                                                                          /s/ H. Irwin Levy

                                                                                                           H. Irwin Levy                                                                                                           Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                           November 10, 2003
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ADAM BUTLER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 347 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ADAM BUTLER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 348 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9th day of February, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<table>

                                              EXHIBIT 12.1
                                          PACIFIC ENTERPRISES
                              COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                          (Dollars in millions)
<caption>


                                                                              For the six
                                                                              months ended
                                                                              June 30,
                                1999        2000        2001        2002        2003
                              --------    --------    --------    --------    --------

                           <c>         <c>         <c>         <c>         <c>
Fixed Charges:

Interest                          $ 82        $ 72        $ 88        $ 63        $ 31
Interest portion of
  annual rentals                     3           4           3           2           1
Preferred dividends
  of subsidiaries (1)                2           2           2           2           2
                              --------    --------    --------    --------    --------
Total Fixed Charges
  for Purpose of Ratio            $ 87        $ 78        $ 93        $ 67        $ 34
                              ========    ========    ========    ========    ========

Earnings:

Pretax income from
  continuing operations           $350        $396        $377       $383         $168
Total Fixed Charges
  (from above)                      87          78          93         67           34
                              --------    --------    --------    -------    ---------
Total Earnings for
  Purpose of Ratio                $437        $474        $470       $450         $202
                              ========    ========    ========    =======    =========
Ratio of Earnings
  to Fixed Charges                5.02        6.08        5.05       6.72         5.94
                              ========    ========    ========    =======    =========

(1)	In computing this ratio, "Preferred dividends of subsidiaries" represents the
before-tax earnings necessary to pay such dividends, computed at the effective tax
rates for the applicable periods.

</table>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6159 

To prohibit Federal funds for any State, local, Tribal, or private entity 

that operates or controls an injection center in violation of section 416 

of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 856; commonly referred 

to as the ‘‘Crack House Statute’’). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 7, 2021 

Ms. MALLIOTAKIS (for herself, Ms. STEFANIK, Mr. ZELDIN, Mr. GARBARINO, 

Mr. KATKO, Mr. JACOBS of New York, Mr. REED, and Ms. TENNEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To prohibit Federal funds for any State, local, Tribal, or 

private entity that operates or controls an injection center in violation of section 416 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 856; commonly referred to as 

the ‘‘Crack House Statute’’). 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Defund de Blasio’s 

5 Injection Sites Act of 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6159 IH

1 SEC. 2. NO FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ENTITIES OPERATING UN2 LAWFUL INJECTION CENTERS. 

3 No Federal funds may be made available to any 

4 State, local, Tribal, or private entity that operates or con5 trols an injection center in violation of section 416 of the 

6 Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 856; commonly re7 ferred to as the ‘‘Crack House Statute’’). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### MAYER v. SLAUGHTER et al. HARTMAN v. MAYER et al.

Nos. 3090, 3091.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

April 19, 1949.

Benj. W. Miller and A. J. Jones, both of Bogalusa, for appellants.

Harrison G. Bagwell, of Baton Rouge, for plaintiff Mrs. Estelle D. Hartman.

Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Fuller, of Baton Rouge, for plaintiff Buffington S. Mayer, Jr.

PER CURIAM.

. In these consolidated cases, the defendant, Joseph H. Slaughter, has filed an application for rehearing. We have our serious doubts as to the propriety of just one application for both cases. We are inclined to •be of the opinion that he should have filed an application in each case, setting forth the errors committed by us relative to each case. However, we shall consider his application and his assignment of errors as applying to each case.

In so far as his application applies to the Hartman case, he assigns only one error and that is that we treated defendant Mayer as being discharged in the suit by Mrs. Hartman. We restate that defendant Slaughter is not in any worse position by Mrs. Hartman’s action than he would have found himself had Mayer never been made a party defendant. Furthermore, Mrs. Hartman could have dismissed her suit against Mayer at any time without prejudice to her as against Slaughter.

In so far as his application applies to the Mayer case, his chief complaint is directed in our holding that the negligence, if any, of Mayer was not a contributing cause of the accident. He contends that Mayer was equally guilty of the same negligence as was his truck driver. After a careful review of this record we are firm in our opinion that we have not committed any error in our conclusion. Again, we repeat that our appreciation of the facts in this case leads us to the conclusion that the Hartman truck was not in the lane of travel of Mayer and within the range of Mayer’s lights a sufficient length of time for Mayer to observe the Hartman truck and stop his automobile. Furthermore, he was presented with an emergency, not of his making, and is therefore absolved of any pre-existing negligence, that is, of driving too fast under the prevailing weather condition. His neg*48ligence was not a cause of the accident under the facts of the case. We again state that the sole proximate cause of this accident was the negligence of McGinnis, defendant Slaughter’s truck driver.

Rehearing refused in both cases.
Exhibit 13.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of WNS
(Holdings) Limited (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the accompanying annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2014 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 14, 2014



|       |  |                              
|------ |  | -----------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Sanjay Puria             
|Name:  |  | Sanjay Puria                 
|Title: |  | Group Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is
not being filed either as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure statement, and is not to be incorporated by reference into the Report or any other filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless
of any general incorporation language in such filing. The foregoing certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liabilities of
Section 18 or Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
* Pursuant to 5 T H 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. 99-20021 Summary Calendar

RICHARD E. CHANEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BROWN & ROOT ENERGY SERVICES, INC., BROWN & ROOT INTERNAT’L, INC., BROWN & ROOT FAR EAST ENG’RS PTE LTD. (REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE), BROWN & ROOT, INC., BROWN & ROOT HOLDINGS, INC., BROWN & ROOT TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., BROWN & ROOT FAR EAST, BROWN & ROOT SERV. CORP., BROWN & ROOT FAR EAST ENG’RS PTE LTD., AND HALLIBURTON CO.,

Defendant-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(H-97-CV-3540)

August 4, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Richard Chaney appeals the district court’s grant of Brown &

Root Far East’s motion to dismiss and the other defendants’ motions

for summary judgment. Chaney did not file responses to these

motions, but instead filed a delayed Rule 56(f) motion for a

continuance, which the district court denied.2

This court reviews the denial of a Rule 56(f) motion for abuse

of discretion. S ee Stearns Airport Equip. Co., Inc. v. FMC Corp.
,

170 F.3d 518, 534 (5th Cir. 1999). On review of the record, we

find that the district court’s rulings were not an abuse of

discretio n. The district court appropriately enforced its rules

and correctly concluded that Chaney’s Rule 56(f) motion lacked the

requisite specificity. See Washington v. Allstate Insurance Co.

,
901 F.2d 1281, 1285 (5th Cir. 1990) (holding that the movant must

be able to demonstrate ho w postponement and additional discovery

will allow him to defeat summary judgment).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Otter Tail Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John
D. Erickson, 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, that:  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. /s/ John D. Erickson
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16-654V

Filed: October 31, 2016

UNPUBLISHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

LISA PICKER, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

v. * Influenza;

* Shoulder Injury; SIRVA;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Mary Coffey, Coffey & Nichols, LLC, St. Louis, MO, for petitioner.

Linda Sara Renzi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On June 2, 2016, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the “Vaccine 

Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) following receipt of her October 8, 2014 influenza vaccination.

Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of 

Special Masters.

On October 31, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she 

concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 

4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent “has concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury 

is consistent with SIRVA and was caused-in-fact by the administration of a flu vaccine 

on October 8, 2014. There were no other causes identified for petitioner’s SIRVA. 

Records indicate that she has suffered the sequela of her injuries for more than six 

 1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits 

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

months.” Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees that petitioner has satisfied all legal 

prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JEFFREY KRUGER, 

Plaintiff,

Civil No. 09-13442

Hon. John Feikens 

v.

HARRAH’S ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,

Defendant. 

________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, filed on

2/24/2010, and noted that no objections were filed by either party, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report is accepted and entered as the findings and

conclusions of this court. 

s/John Feikens 

John Feikens

United States District Judge

Dated: March 17, 2010
2

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of record

by electronic means or U.S. Mail on March 17,

2010.

s/Carol Cohron 

Deputy Clerk
#### George W. Moore v. Theresa Lindsay.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs.
#### Michael Neshewat, Appellant, v Maurice J. Neshewat, Also Known as Maurice J. Salem, Respondent.

[677 NYS2d 508]

*802In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bernhard, J.), dated June 24, 1997, which granted the motion of the defendant for renewal of the plaintiff’s prior unopposed motion for leave to enter a default judgment on the defendant’s default in appearing or answering and for an assessment of damages, and, upon renewal, in effect, denied the plaintiff’s motion and vacated the defendant’s default.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the last sentence thereof and substituting therefor a provision that, upon renewal, the original determination is adhered to; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, for an assessment of damages.

Since, on this record, the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his delay in appearing or answering and a meritorious defense, the Supreme Court erred in vacating the default *(see, Epstein v Nieves,*234 AD2d 503). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.
November 1, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

REYNA ISABEL TABORDA AND PHILLIP L. HURLEY, Appellants

NO. 14-16-00545-CV V.

SRINIVASACHARY V. TAMIRISA AND BARRY POWELL, Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on June 7, 2016. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellants, Reyna Isabel Taborda and Phillip L. Hurley.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 163 (Thursday, August 21, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 49462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19292]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. 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 the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than September 4, 2008.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Glenda Wilson, Community 
Affairs Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
    1. First Cecilian Bancorp, Inc., Cecilia, Kentucky, to engage in 
lending activities, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 15, 
2008.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8-19292 Filed 8-20-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S