alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Ross Wilmot, Chief Financial Officer of Orko Silver Corp. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended October 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.





Date: April 26, 2007



/s/  Ross Wilmot

Ross Wilmot,

Chief Financial Officer













#
* TheHonorable Pasco M. Bowman stepped down as Chief Judge of the United

States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at the end of the day on April 23, 1999. He has been succeeded by the Honorable Roger L. Wollman.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-3631

___________ In re: Douglas Freeman; Lisa Freeman, * * Debtors. *

____________________ * * Tod Hall, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern Appellant, * District of Arkansas.

* v. * [UNPUBLISHED] * Douglas Freeman; Lisa Freeman, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: April 22, 1999

Filed: April 28, 1999

___________ Before BOWMAN, * Chief Judge, ROSS, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Having reviewed the record in the context of Tod Hall's contentions, we conclude the bankruptcy court and the district court correctly held the indebtedness in-2-

questionwas dischargeable, and an extended discussion is unnecessary. We affirm for the reasons stated in the bankruptcy and the district court's rulings. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.

Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 163 (Thursday, August 21, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 49496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19371]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 52-011]


Southern Nuclear Operating Company; Notice of Availability of the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for an Early Site Permit 
(ESP) Application at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) has published NUREG-1872, ``Final Environmental Impact Statement 
for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 
Site.'' The site is located on the southwest side of the Savannah River 
in eastern Burke County, Georgia. A notice of availability of the draft 
EIS was published in the Federal Register on September 14, 2007 (72 FR 
52586).
    The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that NUREG-1872, 
``Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for an Early Site Permit 
(ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site'', Volumes 1 and 2 
(including an addendum to Appendix F of Volume 2), is available for 
public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) located at One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (First Floor) Rockville, 
Maryland 20852, or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component 
of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), and 
will also be placed directly on the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov. 
ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (The Public Electronic Reading Room). Persons who 
do not have access to ADAMS, or who encounter problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS, should contact the PRD reference staff by 
telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 1-301-415-4737, or online at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/contact-pdr.html. In addition, the following 
public library in the vicinity of the Vogtle ESP Site has agreed to 
make the FEIS available for public inspection:
Burke County Library,
130 Highway 24 South,
Waynesboro, GA 30830.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Notich, Environmental Projects 
Branch 1, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Office of New 
Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001. Mr. Notich may be contacted by telephone at 301-415-3053, or by 
e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#335e5241581d5d5c475a505b735d41501d545c45"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e18c80938acf8f8e95888289a18f9382cf868e97">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of August 2008.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nilesh Chokshi,
Deputy Director, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Office of 
New Reactors.
[FR Doc. E8-19371 Filed 8-20-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32



Certification of Principal Executive
Officer

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002)



In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Howard Bancorp, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof, the undersigned officers of Howard Bancorp, Inc., each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:



| | (1) | Such Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2012 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 such Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2012 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Howard
Bancorp, Inc.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







|Date: June 27, 2012                                  |  |  |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|                                                     |  |  |  | 
|                                                     |  |  |  | 
|/s/ Mary Ann Scully                                  |  |  |  | 
|Mary Ann Scully                                      |  |  |  | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer                |  |  |  | 
|                                                     |  |  |  | 
|                                                     |  |  |  | 
|/s/ George C. Coffman                                |  |  |  | 
|George C. Coffman                                    |  |  |  | 
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  |  | 
|                                                     |  |  |  | 



This certification is made solely for the
purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document, and may
not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person for any reason other than as specifically required by law.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dejon McGinis, Also Known as Dejon McInis, Appellant.

[679 NYS2d 363]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered September 26, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 10 to 20 years, unanimously affirmed.

The circumstantial evidence at trial was sufficient, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People, to establish that defendant knowingly aided two other individuals in their immediate flight from the commission of an armed robbery *(see, People v Rossey,*89 NY2d 970). A rational trier of fact could find that defendant was a knowing participant in the crime based on the timing and orchestration by defendant of his arrival at the crime scene in the livery cab, his instructions to the driver of the cab, and the totality of the words and action of defendant and the other two participants. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
EXHIBIT 11

                      SPARTECH CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                      (In thousands, except per share data)

                                 QUARTER ENDED      NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                Aug. 4,    July 29,  Aug. 4,  July 29,
                                 2001      2000      2001      2000

NET EARNINGS
  Basic net earnings            $  4,659  $ 13,604  $ 23,337  $ 38,552
  Add:  Distributions on
   Preferred Securities,
   net of tax                          -         *     1,563     2,086     *
3,380

  Diluted net earnings             4,659    15,167    25,423    41,932

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES
 OUTSTANDING
  Basic weighted average common
   shares outstanding             26,746    27,427    26,690    27,358
  Add:  Shares issuable from
   assumed conversion of
   Preferred Stock                     -         *     4,578     2,071     *
3,382
  Add:  Shares issuable from
   assumed exercise of options       577       855       423       985

  Diluted weighted average
   shares outstanding             27,323    32,860    29,184    31,725


NET EARNINGS PER SHARE

  Basic                         $    .17  $    .50  $    .87  $   1.41
  Diluted                       $    .17  $    .46  $    .87  $   1.32


* - For the quarter ended August 4, 2001, the assumed conversion of convertible
preferred securities was antidilutive, and, accordingly, those shares and the
add-back of the distributions were excluded from the diluted earnings per share
calculation.
Exhibit 10.3  Amended and Restated Note - Coppa
















AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO 
UNSECURED PROMISSORY NOTE


This instrument is Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”), dated as of April 30, 2014, to the Unsecured Promissory Note dated as of September 17, 2010 (the “Promissory Note”) issued by American Power Group, Inc. (formerly GreenMan Technologies, Inc.) (the “Company”) to Charles E. Coppa (the “Holder”). Terms used in this Amendment without definition which are defined in the Promissory Note have the same meanings in this Amendment as in the Promissory Note unless otherwise provided herein.    
    
WHEREAS, the Company has previously issued the Promissory Note to the Holder and amended the Promissory Note on April 27, 2012;


WHEREAS, the Promissory Note shall remain in full force and effect with this Amendment No. 2; and


WHEREAS, the Company and the Holder now desire to further amend the Promissory Note; 


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which the Parties hereby acknowledge, the Company and the Holder, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:


		
	1.
	The first paragraph of the Promissory Note is hereby amended by:




		
	(a)
	deleting the reference to “the second anniversary of the Closing (as defined below)” therein and replacing it with “September 30, 2014”;




		
	(b)
	Deleting the reference to “at a rate equal to twelve percent (12%) per annum” therein and replacing it with “at a rate equal to eight percent (8%) per annum”; and




		
	(c)
	deleting the following sentence at the end of such paragraph:




“Notwithstanding the foregoing, commencing on the sale of at least $7,000,000 of Convertible Preferred Stock pursuant to that certain Securities Purchase Agreement by and among the Debtor and certain Purchasers (as defined therein) and the receipt by the Debtor of $7,000,000 before payment of applicable fees and expenses (the “Closing”), the interest rate on this Note shall be reduced from twelve percent (12%) per annum to eight percent (8%) per annum.” 


2.    The Holder waives any prior default under the Promissory Note.


3.    Except as otherwise amended by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Promissory Note shall remain in full force and effect. 


4.    This Amendment shall be governed by and construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first written above.




American Power Group Corporation
        


By:  /s/Maury Needham        
Maury Needham
Chairman




HOLDER:


        
/s/Charles E. Coppa            
Charles E. Coppa
<XBRL>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!--XBRL Document Created with Wdesk from Workiva-->
<!--Copyright 2020 Workiva-->
<!--r:d1940f52-398e-4225-a768-d2351708f9ae,g:9849058c-a1d0-46c0-afc0-fce444fd2f70-->
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:link="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" xmlns:cinf="http://www.cinfin.com/20201026" attributeFormDefault="unqualified" elementFormDefault="qualified" targetNamespace="http://www.cinfin.com/20201026">
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xlink-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-instance-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-linkbase-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2020-01-31" schemaLocation="https://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2020/dei-2020-01-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:annotation>
    <xs:appinfo>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20201026_cal.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/calculationLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20201026_def.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/definitionLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20201026_lab.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/labelLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20201026_pre.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:roleType id="CoverPageCoverPage" roleURI="http://www.cinfin.com/role/CoverPageCoverPage">
        <link:definition>0001001 - Document - Cover Page Cover Page</link:definition>
        <link:usedOn>link:presentationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:calculationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:definitionLink</link:usedOn>
      </link:roleType>
    </xs:appinfo>
  </xs:annotation>
</xs:schema>
</XBRL>
#### David Hordern, Appellant, v. The Salvation Army, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on 124 Appellate Division, 674.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Terrence Reed v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-11-00645-CR

Trial court case number: 1283986

Trial court: 228th District Court of Harris County

Defendant’s exhibit 2—a DVD of the defendant’s interrogation—was admitted 

into evidence at trial in the above case. This Court orders the Harris County District

Clerk, or the court reporter if the exhibit is still in his or her possession, to send the 

original of Defendant’s exhibit 2—a DVD of the defendant’s interrogation—to this 

Court. The Clerk of this Court is directed to cooperate with the district clerk and/or court 

reporter to provide for the safekeeping, transportation, and return of such exhibit. See

TEX. R. APP P. 34.6(g)(2).

The exhibit is due in this Court no later than October 19, 2012.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Bland

  Acting individually ☐ A cting for the C ourt

Date: October 11, 2012
EXHIBIT 12


PG&E GAS TRANSMISSION,
NORTHWEST CORPORATION


SEC FILING - FORM 10-Q - First Quarter 2002


EXHIBIT 12 - RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES





For the Three Months EndedRatio of earnings to Fixed Charges

2002

2001EarningsNet income

16.8

19.5Adjustments:Income taxes

10.1

12.5Fixed charges (as below)

9.1

10.2Total adjusted earnings

36.0

42.2Fixed charges:Net interest expense

8.3

10.1Adjustments:Interest component of rents

0.1

0.1AFUDC debt

0.7

0.0Total fixed charges

9.1

10.2Ratio of earnings to fixed charges

4.0

4.1
Exhibit (11)
                                                               ------------


                         OWENS CORNING AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
<TABLE>
<S>                                                                                      <C>               <C>
                                                                                             Quarter Ended
                                                                                               March 31,
                                                                                               ---------
                                                                                        2001              2000
                                                                                        ----              ----
                                                                                    (In millions of dollars, except
                                                                                              share data)
Basic:

Net income                                                                          $      (10)     $       48
                                                                                    -----------     ----------

Basic weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding (thousands)                                                               55,042          54,590

Basic per share amount                                                              $     (.19)     $      .88
                                                                                    ===========     ==========

Diluted:
-------

Net income                                                                          $      (10)     $       50
                                                                                    -----------     ----------

Weighted average number of shares outstanding (thousands)                               55,042          54,590
Weighted average common equivalent shares (thousands):
  Deferred awards                                                                            -             576
  Stock options using the higher of average market price or
    market price at end of period                                                            -              22
  Shares from assumed conversion of preferred securities                                     -           4,566
                                                                                    -----------     ----------

Diluted weighted average number of common shares outstanding
   and common equivalent shares (thousands)                                             55,042          59,754
                                                                                    ===========     ==========

Diluted per share amount                                                            $     (.19)     $      .84
                                                                                    ===========     ==========
</TABLE>
#### Cordelia LINDSAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M.N. HARRIS, D.F. Roses, and M.N. Harris, D.F. Roses, M.D.’s P.C., Defendants, New York University Medical Center, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-7184.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 15, 2002.

Cordelia Lindsay, pro se, Bronx, NY, for Appellant.

Ada Meloy, Esq., Law *Office of S.*Andrew Schaffer, Esq., New York, NY, for Appellee.

Present LEVAL, SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges, and KOELTL,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable John G. Koeltl, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Cordelia Lindsay, *pro se,*appeals *from*the January 16, 2002 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Denny Chin, Judge), granting the motion of New York University Medical Center, Dr. Harris, Dr. Roses and Drs. Harris and Roses, M.D.’s P.C. (collectively “NYU”) for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. We review orders granting summary judgment *de novo*and focus on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. *See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mazzola,*175 F.3d 255, 258 (2d Cir.1999).

Lindsay, an African-American, claimed in her November 2000 complaint that NYU violated her Constitutional and statutory rights by discharging her on the basis of her race. Lindsay brought the suit pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e *et seq.*and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and requested monetary damages and a declaratory judgment.

We agree with the district court, for substantially the reasons set forth in its memorandum decision and order, that NYU established that it discharged Lindsay on the basis of her poor work performance, tardiness and insubordination, which are legitimate non-discriminatory reasons, and that Lindsay failed to present any evidence establishing that she was discharged on the basis of her race. *See Lindsay v. N.Y. Univ. Med. Ctr.,*No. 00 *62CIV 8476 DC, 2002 WL 48771 (S.D.N.Y.Jan.11, 2002).

The discrepancies Lindsay points out on appeal in the declarations submitted in support of NYU’s motion for summary judgment fail to establish that Lindsay was discharged on the basis of her race. In light of NYU’s submissions indicating that prior to her discharge Lindsay had been given several warnings regarding her poor work performance, tardiness and insubordination, the discrepancies are not enough to defeat NYU’s motion for summary judgment. *See Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, Bd. of Educ.,*243 F.3d 93, 102 (2d Cir.2001).

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