alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit (32)



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Owens Corning (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 (the Report), I,
Michael H. Thaman, 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 to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Michael H. Thaman  
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|August 3, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the August
29, 1998, financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-29-1998
<CASH>                                            8984
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     376739
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                410303
<PP&E>                                          364832
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (24194)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  781336
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           174774
<BONDS>                                         381000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           200
<OTHER-SE>                                      160385
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    781336
<SALES>                                        1423698
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1426386
<CGS>                                          1059901
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1059901
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               29144
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (30830)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (7615)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (23215)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (23215)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.16)
        

</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6456 

To prohibit the provision of Federal funds to a local educational agency 

that requires any student at the schools served by the agency to wear 

a face covering or be vaccinated against COVID-19. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 20, 2022 

Mrs. MILLER of Illinois (for herself, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, and Mr. GOHMERT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To prohibit the provision of Federal funds to a local educational agency that requires any student at the schools 

served by the agency to wear a face covering or be 

vaccinated against COVID-19. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDS FOR CER4 TAIN LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—No Federal funds shall be pro6 vided to a local educational agency that requires a student 

7 at a public elementary school or secondary school under 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6456 IH

1 the jurisdiction of the local educational agency to wear a 

2 face covering or be vaccinated against COVID-19. 

3 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the terms ‘‘ele4 mentary school’’, ‘‘local educational agency’’, and ‘‘sec5 ondary school’’ have the meanings given such terms in sec6 tion 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 

7 Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         $38,882                 $68,914
<SECURITIES>                                        $0                      $0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 $655,137                 $95,118
<ALLOWANCES>                                        $0                      $0
<INVENTORY>                                 $8,646,046              $8,504,159
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           $10,151,658              $9,709,602
<PP&E>                                     $20,047,347             $19,406,818
<DEPRECIATION>                             $14,275,947             $13,601,636
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             $16,608,446             $16,213,959
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       $4,322,671              $4,153,786
<BONDS>                                     $1,275,972              $2,409,333
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               $0                      $0
<PREFERRED>                                         $0                      $0
<COMMON>                                      $174,926                $174,926
<OTHER-SE>                                 $10,926,152             $10,138,304
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               $16,608,446             $16,213,959
<SALES>                                     $1,384,984              $1,269,380
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            $1,405,438              $1,286,702
<CGS>                                       $1,444,031              $1,127,290
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               $1,444,031              $1,127,290
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              $169,633                $179,295
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    $0                      $0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             $28,156                 $40,975
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             $(879,806)              $(666,640)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        $0                      $0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         $(879,806)              $(666,640)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      $0                      $0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     $0                      $0
<CHANGES>                                           $0                      $0
<NET-INCOME>                                $(879,806)              $(666,640)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    $(1.69)                 $(1.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  $(1.69)                 $(1.28)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnold SNIPES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-7089.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.

Decided Nov. 13, 2002.

*157Arnold Snipes, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Chastain Wicker, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Arnold Snipes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Snipes has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. *See United States v. Snipes,*Nos. CR-00-522; CA-02-487-2 (D.S.C. June 19, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
EX-4.32



 Exhibit 4.32 

Summary in English of Call and Put Option Agreement 
 The
following are the main terms and conditions pursuant to which Tenedora Ares, S.A.P.I. de C.V. (“Tenedora Ares”), Thomas Stanley Heather Rodríguez (“TSH”), Vamole Inversiones 2013, S.L. Sociedad Unipersonal
(“Vamole”), and Arretis, S.A.P.I. de C.V. (“Arretis” or the “Beneficiary”), entered into a call and put option agreement dated July 31, 2013 (the “Option Agreement”). 

 

			
	TYPE OF TRANSACTION	  	Call and Put Option Agreement
		
	 PARTIES
	  	Tenedora Ares, TSH, Vamole and Arretis
		
	 BENEFICIARY
	  	Arretis
		
	 SIGNATURE DATE
	  	July 31, 2013
		
	 TERM
	  	 Until the first to occur of:
  

•    July 31, 2023
  

•    The date on which the purchase price for the exercise of the put option is paid and the
shares of Tenedora Ares are duly transferred to the Beneficiary.
  

•    The date on which the purchase price for the exercise of the call option is paid and the
shares of Tenedora Ares are duly transferred to the Beneficiary.

		
	 SUBJECT
	  	 Put Option:
  

The Beneficiary grants Vamole and TSH an irrevocable sale option, such that the Beneficiary irrevocably offers to acquire, and Vamole and TSH will have the
right to sell, all of the shares they own, representing the 5% of the capital stock of Tenedora Ares.
  

Call Option:
  

Each of Vamole and TSH severally grant the Beneficiary an irrevocable purchase option, such that each of Vamole and TSH irrevocably offer and bind themselves
severally to sell to the Beneficiary, and the Beneficiary will have the right to purchase, all of the shares they own, representing 5% of the capital stock of Tenedora Ares.

		
	 PRICE
	  	Will be equal to the fair market value of the Tenedora Ares shares that are subject to this Call and Put Option Agreement in Mexican Pesos at the time the call option or put option, as the case may be, is exercised.
		
	RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS	  	 As long as the Call and Put Option Agreement is effective, the Parties are subject to among others, the following restrictive covenants:

 
 (a) Non-disclosure; and

 
 (b) Assignment of rights and obligations.

		
	 JURISDICTION
	  	Mexican federal courts located in Mexico City.
		
	 GOVERNING LAW
	  	Applicable federal law in Mexico.
#### The St. Louis, Kansas City and Colorado Railroad Company, Defendant in Error, v. William P. Lewright *et*al., Plaintiffs in Error.

St. Louis Court of Appeals,

February 28, 1891.

Appeal: jurisdiction. An action for the condemnation of land for public uses involves title to land, and the supreme court has-exclusive jurisdiction of an appeal therein.

*Error to the St. Louis County Circuit Court.*— Hon, W. W. Edwards, Judge.

Transferred to supreme court.

*John W. Booth,*for plaintiffs in error.

*R. II. Stevens*and *T. A.*Lowe, for defendant in error.

Rombauer, P. J.

This is a proceeding seeking to-condemn the land of the defendants for a right of way of plaintiff’s railroad. We have decided at the present term in *Musick v. Railroad,*43 Mo. App. 326, that where proceedings of this character contemplate, practically a divestiture of title, they are suits *involving title to real estate,*within the meaning of section 12, article 6, of the constitution, and that the supreme court has-exclusive appellate jurisdiction thereof. It would seem. *213to us that the supreme court in effect has so decided this question by retaining jurisdiction of the cause of the *Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Young,*96 Mo. 39, which involved the validity of condemnation proceedings for road purposes, and which came to that court upon a direct appeal from the Clinton circuit court.

It is, therefore, ordered that the clerk at once transfer all the papers in this case, with a copy of this order of transfer, to the supreme court.

AlLthe judges concur.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 20, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49211-49212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19284]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose

[[Page 49212]]

confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material, and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a 
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel RAPID Review.
    Date: August 25, 2008.
    Time: 9:30 am to 10:30 am.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Christopher S. Sarampote, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute 
of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., 
Room 6148, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-443-1959, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#791a0a180b18140916391418101557171011571e160f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="781b0b190a19150817381519111456161110561f170e">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, 
Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist 
Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 13, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-19284 Filed 8-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Everitt Magagnos v. P. H. Ohmeis.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF EQUITY INNS, INC FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>                      
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                                 400
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        9,172
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                             790,132
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     807,023
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               364
<OTHER-SE>                                         430,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       807,023
<SALES>                                            106,731
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    73,644
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  21,587
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     33,087
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        28,221
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .78
        





</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 2, 2018

Order 

Clerk

November 2, 2018

158153

GAIL GIRERD, Personal Representative of 

the ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHE GIRERD, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 158153

v COA: 336818

Wayne CC: 15-013440-NO

SANA ENERGY & MANAGEMENT, INC., 

and MY05, LLC, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the stipulation signed by counsel for the parties 

agreeing to the dismissal of the application for leave to appeal is considered, and the 

application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs to either 

party.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 24.2


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT, that the undersigned, Kenneth T. Friedman
constitutes and appoints Yehoram Uziel and Robert E. Kassel, or either of them,
his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, each with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in
any and all capacities, to sign the Form 10-KSB, Annual Report of Soligen
Technologies, Inc., a Wyoming Corporation, for the fiscal year ended March 31,
1999, and any amendments or supplements thereto, and to file this Power of
Attorney and the Form 10-KSB, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in
connection therewith with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Superintendent of the British Columbia Securities Commission, the American Stock
Exchange and the Vancouver Stock Exchange, granting unto each of said
attorneys-in-fact and agents full power and authority to do and perform each and
every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said attorneys-fact and
agents, or his substitutes, may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

             Dated this     21st      day of June 1999
                       --------------


Signature



/s/ Kenneth T. Friedman
--------------------------------------
Kenneth T. Friedman, Director
#### DEAN v. WINN PARISH SCHOOL BOARD et al.

No. 5908.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

May 29, 1939.

Rehearing Denied June 28, 1939.

Joel L. Fletcher, of Colfax, for appellant.

Harry Fuller, of Winnfield, and Vinson M. Mouser, of Columbia, for appellees.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

Plaintiff appealed from a judgment sustaining exceptions of misjoinder, nonjoin-der, and of no right or cause of action, and dismissing his suit at his cost. In this court the latter exception alone is stressed. Action of the court in sustaining the exceptions of misjoinder and nonjoinder appears to have been acquiesced in.

According to the allegations of the petition, in the year 1936, the School Board of Winn Parish employed plaintiff at a monthly salary not disclosed to transport by bus over a definite route, some of the school children of Ward 8 of said parish, to the Calvin Public School therein during the 1936-37 session. A written contract evidencing their agreement was signed, which, however, is not physically before us as it was not attached to nor made a part of the petition. The contract contained a stipulation, the exact wording of which is not given to us, to the effect that it might be renewed for the ensuing two years. The petition says “with the privilege of renewal for two years.” A like contract was signed by the parties for the 1937-38 term, and this, it is averred, contained a provision whereby it might be renewed for one year. The board declined to renew the contract for the 1938-39 scholastic term, allegedly because of change in its membership from said Ward 8. This suit followed.

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the school board from contracting with any other person to transport said children to said school during the 1938-39 session, and seeks mandamus to compel the board’s secretary to sign and deliver to him a renewal of the contract for said session. In the alternative, he prays for a money judgment against a named number (not all) of the members of the board and its secretary, in solido.

Stripped of all collateral phases, plaintiff’s suit is simply an effort on his part to force the school board to specifically perform the obligation allegedly devolving upon it by and through the renewal privilege stipulation. If his efforts should receive judicial sanction, it would simply mean that the school board and its secretary would be ordered to sign and execute to and with him a contract to transport school children over the route involved for the scholastic session of 1938-39. The execution of such a contract is now impossible, as this session of the school has expired. We take judicial cognizance of the fact that the public schools of the state open in September of each year and close on or about June first of the following' year.

The issues tendered and questions of law propounded herein are now moot; and for this reason, the appeal is- dismissed at appellant’s cost.