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

 

 

WHOLEHEALTH PRODUCTS, 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 Annual Report of Wholehealth Products, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period  ended August 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Arcaro, Principal  Executive  Officer of the Company, certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.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; and

 

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

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Joseph Arcaro and will be retained by Wholehealth Products, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

 

 Dated: October 5, 2012

 

By: /s/ Joseph Arcaro

Joseph Arcaro

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)

EXHIBIT 32.2

 

 

WHOLEHEALTH PRODUCTS, 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 Annual Report of Wholehealth Products, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K  for the period  ended August 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Arcaro, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.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; and

 

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

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Joseph Arcaro and will be retained by Wholehealth Products, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

 

Dated: October 5, 2012

By: /s/ Joseph Arcaro

Joseph Arcaro 

Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 23.1















Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm









Chyron Corporation 401(k) Plan


Melville, New York




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (no. 333-01861, 333-152205 and 333-167086) of Chyron Corporation 401(k) Plan of our report dated June 24, 2011, relating to the financial statements and supplemental schedule which appear in this Form 11-K.







/s/ BDO USA, LLP





BDO USA, LLP


Melville, New York







June 24, 2011
Filed pursuant to
                                                                  Rule 424(b)(2)
                                                      Registration No. 333-32065

                                    Citicorp
                               U.S. $7,000,000,000
                    Global Medium-Term Senior Notes, Series C
                               U.S. $2,000,000,000
                 Global Medium-Term Subordinated Notes, Series C
                Due From 9 Months to 60 Years From Date of Issue

Pricing  Supplement, dated August 19, 1997
  (To Prospectus Supplement, dated May 21, 1997;
  to Prospectus, dated May 21, 1997)

                              DESCRIPTION OF NOTES

         The terms of the Subordinated Notes set forth in this Pricing
Supplement supplement and modify, to the extent applicable, the description of
general terms and provisions of Citicorp's Global Medium-Term Subordinated
Notes, Series C, set forth in the accompanying Prospectus and Prospectus
Supplement. Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings
assigned to such terms in the accompanying Prospectus and Prospectus Supplement.

SUMMARY OF TERMS:

Title of Notes:         7.150% Subordinated Notes Due August 15, 2012 (the
                        "Notes").

Aggregate
Principal Amount:       $15,000,000.00.

Price to Public:        100%

Issue Date:             August 22, 1997.

Stated Maturity:        August 15, 2012.

Interest Rate:          7.150% per annum.

Interest Payment Dates: Monthly on the 15th day of each month, commencing in
                        September 1997, and at Stated Maturity.

Regular Record Dates:   Monthly on the 1st day of each month for the related
                        Interest Payment Date.

Sinking Fund:           The Notes are not subject to any sinking fund provision.

Redemption:             The Notes are subject to redemption, in whole but not in
                        part, at the option of Citicorp, on not more than 60 or
                        less than 30 days' notice, on any Interest Payment Date
                        occurring on or after August 15, 2000, at a redemption
                        price of 100% of their principal amount plus accrued and
                        unpaid interest to the redemption date.

Selling Agents:         Salomon Brothers Inc

Agents' Discount
or Commission:          2.125%.

Minimum Denomination:   $1,000.

CUSIP Number:           17303 MHC 6.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF **TEXAS** AUlTlN



### Sfowrmblo0. E. 8lm@tor oowty Attoraoy martla 

### oouaty Stanton, 

### Ton8

voforo trtal it ir 

### 600ia04 to romblm the owe. and 

### try both detasdurta tcqrther rhioh lr ooaourre4 ia by muare ior ao?os4- ant 

### and a am oomplaintl~ l aoutod lnol1141~Eonanblo 0. Il. sloughto?; h&e E

both ~oioadazito, rEargod 

### with tha umo of- 

### ?$LBB~;O

~8 l haraodoa 

### tho orlgl~l 

### oom- 

### It l ppanatlq 

### kina **the** 

### latoatloa et **thi** WllO. to uao on. 

## or the orlglaal nUbor so rppearlag oa hlo dookot, oaf tb mambo? &lroa to A*o oaoo, lnoludo thio oa tho sow OOPplaint tlloa to ln ol ud o l aoh 4etoabaat and not l rrlgn a new nuabw aad a now oaw, or l lro tha mttor wa6 onrlookod aa4 aa l atirol;I now oaoo WI oto&lookod and not dookatoe. At w rat0 the uoo we o~l1.d en4 triad, Mood on tho OOP

### piht that in0hd0b 

### both e0r0dhd0 l n4 00 error ma aLoovaro4 00. tho 

## ame.
vha l

### aoo was trlod

## b*r0&0 I jury end l vo&tllot o? lullty wao 

## returned @ g a ln ot

l aah daiondant to rhi oh t he dotoatlaato l

x oopt oQ



### an4 gave notloo or appeal to 

### the oouat~ oolwt.

“What mambo?oboold tho juuont and t&wrorlpt oar&r 

## rroa tJm Juotloo*o dookot? The number origla8119 8oolgno4 to *A* oaoo es originally tllod, or should both number8 that we&o @torn to ldratiir tho two ro9arato oa800 OIIthe dookot bo lnoludod la trJri4 tb UIO ap to tho aouaty oourt rhoro it will bo glvoa 8 now numkr, dookotob oa tho oouat~ oourt a00k0t ana 

### trio& 40 noto and doobtloor both dotoadaato trio& to the just



### r thor lo in tho tuotioo’o ooort? woul& 00h wo l 

### logal &l&t to oO?&a0t 

### his dookot raaoo l

uoh l l&oautaaooo to oornot aa error ati h&w th8 4ookot oonSora to tba naw 

### oosplalat

filed to l110lu60 both 4oion4oatrt 9. .: .* tlade? tha irots 80 rot ?o&th in your lotto&, tho joint oosplalat l

xaoutod aad ?lloU &gainrt both of tho dof o r& ha t s ,

lo a l o pa ra t o

an6 (Uotinot oamplalnt ?rc#a tho two oomplalato ?llod qalaot tho dofondants oeparatel9. Such bolag tho ~ABO, tho now Cmm@alnt should bo l ro~nod 8 a&v rllo amber, 8ab l hould bo bookotob a8 a now oom9lalat.. .

Hohonblo 0. Lt. dlrryhtoti, mgo 8



### a8 r~iipn)

to 

### l 0rlgr r.rli0 aprb0& t0 thb m ooaplalat was aa ororol~t 00 the part 

## 0s th0 suet100 0s tho Naoo, or s ma&o olrrloal or&o?, and one w hl o h l an bo 00rr0ot0d rith0ut 0~ inJ8r~ to tb ria;ht0 0s th0 

## aah ants. Too a&o thoroioro rorpaottully 8Qvloo4 that 

### It ia the opinion or this Doputmat that the **fuotioe** 

## 0s tb POOO, ho the right to oorroot hi. **doakot, by**  ontarIng thorola tha tile numbor of tho joint oomplalat yalmt both of the dofoaUaat8, an8 thnt this IUW ?I10 numbor l houl& bo oa&&lod oa tho judgment and tranoorlpt on lp - ~1 to the oouutr oourt.

Twting t&at this bOti8r00t0rii~ di0p0000 0s you? laqulry, w rewln
You&r wry truly ATTORBBY9~ OFTEXAS

DBDrau
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> OPUR1
<LEGEND>
(Amounts in 1,000's, except earnings per share)
Income tax expense includes $3,259,000 related to other income.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      785,540
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     16,756
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         110,389
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       189,315
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,102,000
<COMMON>                                       188,700
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                         (422)
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             97,330
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 285,608
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           15,000
<PREFERRED>                                     50,905
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           311,394
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0 
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   50,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                 9,492
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 379,601
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,102,000
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      242,127 
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            26,183
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     170,185
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     193,109
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         49,018 
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               5,154
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  54,172 
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        20,974
<NET-INCOME>                                    33,198
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      3,470
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   29,728
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        16,040
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       19,654
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          61,708
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.73
        

</TABLE>
Dated:  3/29/2007                                                                            In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:By: /s/  Bruce Kaiserman                         Title:Vice PresidentCredit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.I, Bruce Kaiserman, certify that:1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp. CSFB Home Equity Asset Trust 2006-4 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");2.  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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 report;3.  Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.  Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.Bruce Kaiserman**Exhibit 31 : Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications**J.P. Morgan Trust Company, N.A, as CustodianJP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., as ServicerLaSalle Bank National Association, as CustodianSelect Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Servicer and Special ServicerThe Bank of New York and The Bank of New York Trust Company, as Successor in interest to J.P. Morgan Trust Company, as CustodianU.S. Bank National Association, as TrusteeWells Fargo Bank, N.A., as CustodianWells Fargo Bank, N.A., as ServicerChase Home Finance LLC, as Sub-servicer for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Servicer
#### People v Craig Becker, Defendant.

Motion to extend time to take appeal held, decision reserved, and matter remitted to Cattaraugus County Court for a hearing. Memorandum: Defendant moves pursuant to CPL 460.30 to extend the time to take an appeal from his judgment of conviction. He accuses his attorney of improper conduct in that, at the time defendant was informed of his right to appeal his conviction, he told his attorney that he wanted to appeal and he requested his attorney to file a notice of appeal for him; that his attorney agreed to do so but failed to file and serve the notice of appeal. Defendant’s attorney controverts those accusations, stating that when he advised defendant of his right to appeal, defendant stated that he did not wish to file a notice of appeal. The motion is held and the matter is referred to County Court, Cattaraugus County, to conduct a hearing to determine whether defendant, at the time he was advised of his right to appeal, told his attorney that he wanted to appeal and requested his attorney to file a notice of appeal for him. We suggest that the need for a hearing might have been avoided had a copy of the written notice given to defendant at the time of sentencing contained a statement to be signed by defendant indicating whether he wished to take an appeal *(see,*22 NYCRR 1022.11). Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Lawton, JJ.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6**  **764**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. LARRY L. JONES , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson
. G. Ross Anderson, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 8 :0 8

- cr - 00 247

- GRA

- 1 ; 8 :1 4

- cv - 0 1803

- GRA )

Submitted : August 28, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING , and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Larry L. Jones , Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington , Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Larry L. Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonab le jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutio nal right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument beca use the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Mrs. Amayze Guillory REED v. E. M. BOAGNI.

No. 1094.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

March 7, 1933.

W. C. Perrault, of Opelousas, for appellant.

Dubuisson & Dubüisson, of Opelousas, for appellee.

ELLIOTT, Judge.

In this case both plaintiff and defendant, appellant and appellee, applied for and were granted a rehearing.

The plaintiff complains that she was not allowed to recover the sum of $277.08 as an overpayment of interest on her notes.

The defendant complains of the judgment because we have condemned him to return to the plaintiff $31.36.

We have reconsidered the subject-matter of both complaints, and authorities adduced in support of same, and we now feel satisfied that our first opinion and decree herein is correct and does justice to both parties. Any further remarks would serve no useful purpose and would just be -an elaboration of what is contained in our original opinion.

For these reasons our former opinion and decree herein is now reinstated, and made the final judgment of this court.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with this QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of The Pep Boys - Manny, Moe & Jack (the “Company”)for the quarterly period ending July 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),

 

I, Michael R. Odell, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(i)                                     The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(ii)                                  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| Date: September 8, 2010 | by:                           | /s/ Michael R. Odell |
|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------------|
|                              | Michael R. Odell              |
|                              | Chief Executive Officer       |
|                              | (Principal Executive Officer) |

 

1

----
##### 



2006 DENTAL CARE PLUS MANAGEMENT EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN  (Amended and Restated)
 Purposes of Plan
  Administration of Plan
  -1-




---



##### 



Participants in Plan
  Shares Subject to Plan
   -2-




---



##### 



Grant of Awards
   Stock Options
  Exercise Price
  -3-




---



##### 



Vesting and Exercise of Options
  Term
  Method of Exercise
  Restrictions on Shares Subject to Stock Options
  -4-




---



##### 



Transferability
  Termination of Employment by Reason of Death or Disability
  Termination of Employment by Reason of Retirement
  Other Termination of Employment
  -5-




---



##### 



Stock Awards  Restricted Shares and RSUs
  Price
  Acceptance of Stock Awards
  -6-




---



##### 



Share Restrictions
  Stock Issuances and Restrictive Legends; Settlement of RSUs
  Shareholder Rights
  -7-




---



##### 



Expiration of Restriction Period
  Termination of Employment
  Restriction on Exercise After Termination
  -8-




---



##### 



Withholding Tax
  Securities Law Restrictions
    -9-




---



##### 



Change in Control
 Accelerated Vesting and Company Purchase Option
    Definition of Change in Control
    -10-




---



##### 



Definition of Potential Change in Control
    Changes in Capital Structure
  -11-




---



##### 



No Enlargement of Employee Rights
  Rights as a Shareholder
  Acceleration of Rights
  Interpretation, Amendment or Termination of the Plan
  -12-




---



##### 



Unfunded Status of the Plan
  Protection of Board and Committee
  Government Regulations
  Governing Law
  Genders and Numbers
  Captions
  Effective Date
  -13-




---



##### 



Term of Plan
  Savings Clause
   DCP HOLDING COMPANYBy:Title:
 -14-
#### Louise HENRY, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Patrick J. MURPHY, Respondent-Appellant.

Docket No. 02-7156.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 6, 2002.

Patrick J. Murphy, of Counsel, Murphy & O’Connell, New York, NY, for Appellant.

Joseph T. Stearns, of Counsel, Kenny, Stearns *&*Zonghetti, New York, NY, (Noreen D. Arralde, of Counsel, on the brief), for Appellee.

Present VAN GRAAFEILAND, JACOBS and CABRANES, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Patrick J. Murphy appeals from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Keenan, J.) confirming an arbitration award to Louise Henry under the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, codified as 9 U.S.C. § 201*et seq.*The arbitration in favor of Henry, as executrix of her late husband’s estate, was held in the Republic of Ireland under Irish law pursuant to a February 1989 agreement concerning a dispute over proceeds from a sale of stock. An Irish arbitrator found in favor of Henry and awarded her the proceeds after a hearing not attended by Murphy. *See In the Matter of an Arbitration between Louise Henry (as Executor for the Estate of the late James J. Henry, Deceased) and Patrick J. Murphy.*Henry’s petition for enforcement pursuant to the Convention followed, and the district court granted her petition. Murphy appeals.

*56Finding no reversible error, we affirm the confirmation of the arbitration award in favor of Henry for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s opin-

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED. ^